Jewish Property Claims Against Arab Countries

by Michael R. Fischbach

Mr. Fischbach is Professor of History, Randolph-Macon College and the author of Jewish Property Claims Against Arab Countries (Columbia University Press (August 2008).

On April 1, 2008, the New York-based coalition Justice for Jews from Arab Countries (JJAC) trumpeted the fact that the United States House of Representatives passed Resolution 185, a non-binding “sense of the House” resolution calling attention to the fate of 800,000 Jews who left Arab countries in the wake of the first Arab-Israeli war of 1948, some without their property. The resolution referred to these Jews as “refugees,” and furthermore called on the President to ensure that American representatives at meetings of the United Nations and elsewhere make specific reference to them whenever mention was made of the issue of Palestinian refugees from 1948. JJAC hailed the action as a step towards redressing the grievances of what some Jewish activists have called “the other refugees.”

But why had JJAC, established relatively recently in 2002, suddenly become active on behalf of the rights of ex-Arab Jews – called Mizrahi or Sephardic Jews, although both terms are problematic – decades after most of them left the Arab world to build new lives in relative obscurity? And why did the Resolution fail to call explicitly for Jewish property compensation or restitution? Furthermore, why did the Resolution, which JJAC helped to write, link the fates, rights, and avenues of possible redress of ex-Arab Jews with those of the Palestinian refugees from 1948, who were not responsible for the Jews’ dispossession in the first place? Were not the mass Jewish exodus from the Arab world and the resultant property losses important enough issues to merit congressional scrutiny on their own, without reference to the Palestinians?

In fact, Resolution 185 was not the result of efforts to demand compensation for Jewish property losses in the Arab world, but rather to assist the government of Israel to blunt Palestinian refugee claims in any final Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. Such claims include not only property compensation, but also what Palestinian refugees called their “right of return” to their pre-1948 homes in Israel – Israel’s nightmare scenario. Unlike the demands for Holocaust reparations, compensation, and restitution that Jewish groups and the State of Israel alike have pursued with vigor over the decades, JJAC went out of its way to state that its campaign on behalf of Jews of Middle Eastern and North African descent was not seeking monetary recompense for property lost at the hands of Arab governments. Why have JJAC and other groups such as the World Jewish Congress (WJC) adopted this stance toward the claims of Jews from the Arab world?

The answer lies in these groups’ zeal in supporting Israeli diplomatic tactics and weakening Palestinian claims in advance of a final peace settlement. Ever since it confiscated the property of the 750,000 Palestinian refugees who fled or were expelled from their homes during the 1948 war, Israel has stated that it will compensate them for some of their property losses as part of a permanent Arab-Israeli peace. Starting in 1951, however, the Israelis linked these compensation obligations with the property losses sustained by tens of thousands of Iraqi Jews who immigrated to Israel after the Iraqi government had sequestered their property. Eventually, over 600,000 other Jews left the Arab world during and after 1948, with some of these suffering property losses as well. Outside of some efforts to register Jewish losses in the1950s, Israel, the WJC, and other international Jewish groups did nothing to seek damages.

The onset of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process in 1993 meant that for the first time in decades, concrete talks on Palestinian refugee claims and Israeli counterclaims might become a reality. Israel accordingly mobilized, and sought help from international Jewish groups to document losses. To arrive at concrete figures, Jewish groups like the American Sephardi Federation (ASF), the World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries (WOJAC), as well as coalitions like the International Committee of Jews from Arab Lands, began distributing claims forms around the world starting in 1999 to collect data on Jewish losses to the Arab world. However, it soon became clear that this campaign was not working. Statistics were hard to come by, and Israeli officials admitted that what figures they were able to document were dwarfed by Palestinian compensation claims. Even with its counterclaims, Israel would owe a considerable amount of money. As a result, Israel proposed to Palestinian negotiators in 2000 and 2001 that an international fund be established, capitalized with Israeli and foreign contributions, which would entertain and pay out compensation claims from all sides to the conflict. With the compensation monkey shifted off its back to an international fund, Israel still faced another problem: the Palestinians’ demand for the right of return. Enter JJAC.

After the al-Aqsa Intifada put the peace process in deep freeze starting in 2001, the WJC developed a new strategy to prepare for the inevitable future resumption of talks. It decided to raise international awareness of the plight of the Mizrahi/Sephardic Jews by equating their experiences and claims with those of the Palestinian refugees. It began referring to the ex-Arab Jews as “refugees,” regardless of the reasons why they had left the Arab world. The purpose of such an equation was to negate Palestinian demands for the right of return by arguing that a permanent, irrevocable Jewish-Arab population transfer had occurred in the Middle East and North Africa after 1948: the Arab world’s Jews and their property for Palestine’s Arabs and their property. In the end, the WJC argued, it was an even exchange. The former Arab Jews were not demanding the right of return to the countries of their birth, so neither should the Palestinians demand the right of return to what is now Israel.

Following up on this, JJAC was established in the United States in September 2002 under the auspices of several American Jewish organizations. JJAC was, in fact, a new iteration of the same principle articulated by the WJC: support Israeli efforts to deflect Palestinian claims by enlisting the experience and losses of the Jews from the Arab world. JJAC pressed hard in its campaign to shift global thinking to accept the notion that Middle Eastern and North African Jews, most of whom now reside in Israel, were refugees deserving equal treatment and political legitimacy as the Palestinian refugees. JJAC took its campaign into the halls of power in the United States and Europe, and in March 2004, its congressional supporters first introduced a bill calling on the American administration to ensure that “any explicit reference [e.g., at international conferences] to the required resolution of the Palestinian refugee issue is matched by a similar explicit reference to the resolution of the issue of Jewish refugees from Arab countries” – an effort that eventually led to passage of House Resolution 185.

Is JJAC’s campaign likely to benefit Mizrahi/Sephardic Jews who suffered property losses when they left the Arab world? Is this even its intent? An “even exchange of populations and property” would leave claimants on all sides with nothing, except perhaps the possibility of seeking compensation from an international fund that does not yet exist. In fact, few efforts have been made over the decades by Israel or Jewish organizations to press for Mizrahi/Sephardic property compensation. This comes in marked contrast to efforts to obtain compensation, restitution, and reparations for European Holocaust survivors and heirs. In fact, individual ex-Arab Jews have on occasion sought compensation or restitution on their own, usually by appealing to Arab and foreign courts. Some in Israel have even sued their own government to force it to act on their behalf; one such case is before the High Court of Justice at this time. Throughout, however, no largely compensation has been paid, nor has any party pushed hard for Mizrahi/Sephardic compensation. Even now that JJAC and others are raising the issue of ex-Arab Jews, they, too, refrain from raising specific demands for compensation.

Is it then proper for JJAC, Israel, or any one else, to use Jewish property losses as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the Palestinians instead of demanding compensation? Why have they not championed compensation and restitution, as was done for Holocaust survivors and heirs? Have the groups bothered to ask ex-Arab Jews who should press their claims, and in what manner? Such questions are not simply political; they go to the heart of healing the wounds of Mizrahi/Sephardic history. Can justice truly be served, can recognition of Jewish suffering and loss truly be obtained, and can healing and renewal truly be achieved, if Jewish claims for dispossession at the hands of Arab regimes are not laid at the doorstep of the responsible parties, but rather used to deflect the claims and narrative of a third party? And if in the end, neither Palestinians nor Jews from Arab countries receive compensation and proper recognition, but find their grievances canceling each other out by groups and negotiators, can true Arab-Israeli healing and reconciliation occur?

Whether part of Arab-Israeli diplomacy or not, whether on their own, or in groups, or through the agency of Israel and others, Jews who left Arab countries must come to feel that their grievances are heard and addressed in a way that is acceptable to them if the wounds of Mizrahi/Sephardic historical memory are to be healed. Resolving these claims and healing this memory will go far toward creating better relations between Jews of Middle Eastern and North African descent and their Ashkenazic fellow citizens of Israel, between Israelis and their Palestinian neighbors, and between Jews and Arabs throughout the Middle East.

More Comments:

art eckstein -
8/30/2008

Omar, it is not my fault if you cannot read a complex argument in English, and thus misunderstand the point, and then go onto attack me as if I was making the argument you think I had made, when I was making the opposite point (that Deir Yassin, right near the main fighting in 1948, was neutral--something which you have proclaimed, but which you don't see undermines deeply the argument you have made on this thread about the undying and unified opposition of Palestinian Arabs to the Jews)). Mr. Friedman understood what I meant about Deir Yassin and how its neutrality undermined your position, and pretty soon.

But what is worse is that then you defend your own misinterpretation of my position (that I was denying Deir Yassin's neutrality) through insults, insisting upon foisting upon me a position on Deir Yassin which was the OPPOSITE of my point, and as though insults and (above all) accusations of bad faith make up for the absence of logical argument and facts on your side.

Omar, if you shamefully make yourself look like a fool yet againa here at HNN, that is not my fault either.

omar ibrahim baker -
8/30/2008

"Your "ELUCIDATION", Prof, is a ( another)failed attempt at an EXTRAPOLATION to justify and get away with an AVOWED FABRICATION, notwithstanding lawyer Friedman's (repeated) hasty attempt(s) at rescue.
Or is it salvage, Professor??

You might have noticed, Professor, that I have lately mostly eschewed and ignored your posts though addressed personally to me for exactly that same reason : your inane tendency to EXTRAPOLATE that has developed, for going perennially unchecked, dishonorably, into bold faced FABRICATION despite my repeated attempts to warn you off this ....
practice.
Once again I pity your students, Professor, and NOT only for the quality of the “ objective knowledge" you give them but equally for the quality of the venue through which it is given....."

art eckstein -
8/29/2008

I haven't changed my position on Deir Yassin one bit.

Omar simply misinterpreted what I said above. When I said "Neutral? Amid all the fighting between Jews and arabs?", I wasn't claiming that Deir Yassin wasn't neutral, but pointing out the implications if it was! I then clarified what I said: I accepted Omar's argument that Deir Yassin was neutral (as I already had previously)both previously) but then pointed out (both times; the first time I guess was clumsy) what Deir Yassin's neutrality meant in terms of Omar's own assertions about the Palestinian Arabs in 1948.

Mr. Friedman understands perfectly what I meant, and the negative implications which Deir Yassin's neutrality raises for Omar's hypothesis about almost-universal and ferocious Palestinian Arab opposition to the Jews in 1948. Omar, it's not difficult.

N. Friedman -
8/29/2008

CORRECTION:

Strike: "The fact is that his point raises the very same issue I raised, which is that your argument regarding the nature of Palestine Arab opposition to issue is belied by the behavior of actual such people."

Substitute: "The fact is that his point raises the very same issue I raised, which is that your argument regarding the nature of Palestine Arab opposition to Israel's creation is belied by the actual behavior of such people."

ADDRESS THE ISSUE RAISED.

N. Friedman -
8/29/2008

Omar,

First, what the professor said originally and what he says he intended are not substantially different.

Second, his corrected statement raises an important issue for you to consider. If you ignore it entirely by accusing him of misquoting you, his corrected point still stands.

The fact is that his point raises the very same issue I raised, which is that your argument regarding the nature of Palestine Arab opposition to issue is belied by the behavior of actual such people. You have not answered me and you have not answered the good professor.

So, please answer his latest post.

omar ibrahim baker -
8/29/2008

In other words, Professor!!!Eckstein, you DO admit that your contention ,your claim:
Eckstein: “ Indeed, your argument about Deir Yassin is that it had stayed neutral in the violence before being attacked by the Irgun. NEUTRAL? Amid fighting between Jews and Arabs? Think about it." (post #126851)
IS a FABRICATION; not an allegation or an extrapolation but a full blooded FABRICATION; Friedman’s rush to come to the rescue,notwithstanding.
To which I responded challenging you:
Omar: Well it seems that you have progressed, Professor, from inane extrapolation to outright FABRICATION.
Where ever did I maintain that :
” your (Omar’s) argument about Deir Yassin is that it had stayed neutral in the violence before being attacked by the Irgun.”(post #126856).

By any standard you can NOT get away , Professor, from a phrase as categorical as:
"your argument about Deir Yassin is that it had stayed neutral in the violence before being attacked by the Irgun. NEUTRAL? "

That is, definitely, NOT, as you allege, due to either:
a- "I think I expressed myself in too short a phrase,"
NOR to:
b-”because I thought it was obvious",

THAT IS but another demonstration of a long running practice of yours of putting words in other peoples' mouths to serve your own purposes.

Your "ELUCIDATION", Prof, is a failed attempt at an EXTRAPOLATION to justify and get away with an AVOWED FABRICATION, notwithstanding lawyer Friedman's hasty attempt at rescue.
Or is it salvage, Professor??

You might have noticed, Professor, that I have lately mostly eschewed and ignored your posts though addressed personally to me for exactly that same reason : your inane tendency to EXTRAPOLATE that has developed, for going perennially unchecked, dishonorably, into bold faced FABRICATION despite my repeated attempts to warn you off this ....
practice.
Once again I pity your students, Professor, and NOT only for the quality of the “ objective knowledge" you give them but equally for the quality of the venue through which it is given.....

N. Friedman -
8/29/2008

Art,

That is a very interesting point. I hope that Omar will address your point directly instead of throwing ideological rhetoric at it.

art eckstein -
8/29/2008

NF and Omar, my point is quite different, and this time you both apparently misunderstand me.

I think I expressed myself in too short a phrase, because I thought it was obvious, so I will elucidate in more detail:

1, Deir Yassin was (mostly) neutral during the fighting until it was attacked by the Irgun: that is what Omar says. Okay--but THAT means that the villagers had not participated in the fighting (as far as we know), though--of course--they were (like everyone else) quite well-armed. That they were well-armed is proven by the scale of Irgun casualties when they did attack the village (4 dead, including the Irgun commander, and 40 wounded, out of an attacking force of about 100).

2. But if the Deir Yassin villagers were well-armed but NEUTRAL, Omar, that pretty-much destroys your assertion that in 1948 all Palestinian Arabs were ferociously against the Jews. Deir Yassin was NOT.

Your whole point is that the Deir Yassin villagers were "innocent". Okay--but that it because Deir Yassin had refrained from participating in the fighting, even though the village was very close to the main battlefields. Well, how many OTHER villages among the Palestinians were like that, Omar--NEUTRAL-- if Deir Yassin in ITS location to the main battlefields between Arabs and Jews was neutral?

Get it?

N. Friedman -
8/29/2008

Omar,

If I understand Professor Eckstein's words, he is saying that you contend, whether or not explicitly, that innocents, not combatants, were killed.

Are you denying that such is your opinion?

omar ibrahim baker -
8/29/2008

Eckstein: Indeed, your argument about Deir Yassin is that it had stayed neutral in the violence before being attacked by the Irgun. NEUTRAL? Amid fighting between Jews and Arabs? Think about it. (post #126851)

AND my reply/challenge:

Omar: Well it seems that you have progressed, Professor, from inane extrapolation to outright FABRICATION.
Where ever did I maintain that :
” your (Omar’s) argument about Deir Yassin is that it had stayed neutral in the violence before being attacked by the Irgun.”(post #126856).

Once again I contend that your allegation is a FABRICATION; show me where I expressed the opinion that:
"Eckstein: Indeed, your argument about Deir Yassin is that it had stayed neutral in the violence before being attacked by the Irgun. NEUTRAL? Amid fighting between Jews and Arabs? Think about it." (post #126851)

Elliott Aron Green -
8/28/2008

The Ben Yehuda Street bombing, slaughtering more than 50 Jews as it did, is especially pertinent to the discussion. It came before whatever happened at Deir Yassin and therefore clearly shows that massacres, mass murders, were an Arab innovation in the conflict.

Two other bombings in Jerusalem should be mentioned, 1) the bombing of the Palestine Post building [palpost is now the Jerusalem Post], and 2) the bombing of the Jewish Agency building. Both of these bombings took place in February-March 1948, as I recall. Both murdered about a dozen to two dozen people. The bombing of the Jewish Agency building is significant in the involvement of non-Arab factors. The Ben Yehuda Street bombing was carried out by British soldiers recruited by the Arab leadership, working under Abdul-Qadir Husseini [father of Faisal, nephew of the Mufti], and driving British trucks which were loaded with explosives and parked on the street, while the bombing at the Agency building was through a car belonging to the US consulate in Jerusalem and driven into the Agency courtyard by the Arab driver who worked for the consulate. This chauffeur regularly drove his boss, the consul, into the Agency yard and was known to the guards at the Agency building who apparently let him through without a thorough check since they knew and trusted him.

I note that Umar does not tell us that traditionally in Arab-Muslim society the Jews were at the bottom of the social barrel and treating them with contempt was a teaching of Islam. Instead, Umar uses the smear label of "colonialism" and "racism" to berate and besmirch Israel, thus joining with the Communists of various sects and stripes. This merger of part of the "left" with the Islamist fanatics is a sinister, destructive combination.

Umar is aware that Arabs conquered Israel and the rest of the Fertile Crescent 14 centuries ago. But this does not mean that the majority of the population was Muslim or Arab at that time. It was not until after the Crusades that the majority of the population in the country was clearly Arab/Muslim.

N. Friedman -
8/28/2008

Art,

I think I can say that I agree with your post here 100%.

art eckstein -
8/28/2008

Mr. Friedman writes several important things here:

1. a. "Having read your posts for many years, your real concern here is that Jews were immigrating without the consent of the local Arab population and that Jews ought not have been afforded any self-determination in a land which you think belongs to Arabs.

b. Your point runs into the difficulty that not all Arabs took the position you take. Many - as in a very large percentage - were willing to sell land to the newcomers. That is entirely inconsistent with the view that the local population was not consulted. Every sale of land involved a vote in favor of the newcomers and their right to live on the land sold to them.

*THIS IS TRUE BOTH TO FACTS AND TO LOGIC, OMAR.*

2.a. Moreover, it was not the custom of that period to consult the local population regarding immigration. It is not the custom today. Such was and is - and in most of the world, including in Europe to this day - the right of the ruler. In Europe, for example, there is substantial immigration by Arabs and Turks, which, were the local populations in Europe consulted, would never have occurred.
b. And, with all the violence that the newcomers brought with them, such people would, if the local population were consulted, almost surely force such people out of Europe.

*THIS IS TRUE AS TO BOTH FACTS AND LOGIC, OMAR*

I know you find both facts and logic difficult to accept, Omar. But Friedman has it correct, and all your screaming won't change that he does have it correct.

The situation was far more complex than you wish it to have been, Omar. And--as ALWAYS--you reject ANY Arab responsibility for the tragedies that have happened.

The Palestinian Arabs do not have a state for these reasons:

1. they backed Germany and Turkey in WWI
2. they backed Nazi Germany in WWII
3. they refused a partition deal in 1947-1948, and initiated a genocidal-aimed war which they lost.
4. they backed the USSR in the Cold War
5. they backed Saddam Hussein in 1990-1991
6. they refused the Camp David and Taba compromises in 2000-2001, and initiated a genocidal-terror instead

These are MONUMENTAL errors. By contrast, the Israelis:

1. Backed the Allies in WWI
2. Backed the Allies in WWII
3. ACCEPTED the partition compromise of 1947-1948 and successful defended themselves against genocidal Arab attack (actions for which you can and will never forgive them, I fear)
4. Successfully defended themselves against the proclaimed Arab genocidal attack in 1967 (something, again, for which I fear you will never forgive them)
5. Backed the West in the early Cold War (though relations with the U.S. were distant)
6. After 1973 strongly backed the US in the later Cold War
7. Abandoned much of its socialist ideology after 1977
8. Backed the Coalition against Saddam Hussein in 1990-1991
9. ACCEPTED the territorial compromises of Camp David and the Taba in 2000-2001.

The reason that Israel exists and is prosperous is because of these strategically wise decisions.

By contrast, the reason that the Palestinians have degenerated into a vicious genocidal death-cult, and still have no state, is because of the incredible record of bad judgment displayed by generation after generation of leaders (mostly tied to the Husseinis; Arafat was a cousin).

Those are the facts. I offer them to the general readership. I know, Omar, that they will make you scream in your rejection of the realities.

It may be that the crazed mullahs in Iran will destroy Israel with nuclear bombs (destroying the Palestinians in the process, but who among the Arabs or Muslims will care, really? They only use the Palestinians as a stick to beat the Jews). That will not change one wit the Israeli achievement.

N. Friedman -
8/28/2008

Omar,

I read your argument already. I responded to the part that is an argument. I noted that the rest is a nonsense argument. Must I make you look stupid a second time. Take my word for it, the second part of your argument is based on a logic fallacy.

omar ibrahim baker -
8/28/2008

Mr. Friedman
"I note with pleasure your total failure to comment on, i.e. your more than implicit support of, the denial of the Palestinian people his right to SELF DETERMINATION and its implications on the "legitimacy" issue you espouse.
I am NOT a lawyer but that much I know: it is "illegal", illegitimate and legally unacceptable, to reach a verdict on an issue if a main, the main, party concerned was absent or NOT represented by representative approved by him.

The Palestinian people was made to be absent through out by the deliberate British/Zionist denial of his right to SELF DETERMINATION.

3-I note with equal pleasure the nature of the "legitimacy" on which you base your arguments; being
the same “legitimacy” that once supported, upheld, French colonization of Algeria and the racist Apartheid system of South Africa etc etc

The sum of the above, 2 & 3, prove beyond any reasonable doubt the retrogressive, colonialist, nature of the Zionist conquest of Palestine that led to the "birth" of Israel and the total fallacy and patent insincerity of your, and yours, pretensions re "democracy" and "respect of human rights.""

N. Friedman -
8/28/2008

CORRECTION:

Strike: "And, with all the violence that the newcomers brought with them, such people would, if the local population were consulted, almost surely force such people out of Europe."

Substitute: "And, with all the violence that the newcomers brought with them, such people would, if the local population were consulted, almost surely have been forced out of Europe. "

_____________________

Strike: "One can only say that the local population does not approve - a fact that a ruler can consider or ignore at his or her benefit or peril, depending on how facts work out."

Substitute: "One can only say that the local population does not approve - a fact that a ruler can consider or ignore at his or her benefit or peril, depending on how events play out."

omar ibrahim baker -
8/28/2008

Eckstein:The main party wasn't absent, except insofar as it was kept from compromising by the violence of the Husseinis in 1948. You cannot know what Arab sentiment would have been without it, Omar.

Omar: The main, the major concerned, party , the 80% Arab Palestinian people, was absent through out .
Pre mandate GB (Balfour Declaration), and at the imposition of the mandate neither GB nor the League of Nations bothered to consult with the Palestinian people through genuine, democratically elected , representatives.

During and through out the mandate British/International Jewish/Zionist collusion denied the Palestinian people his right to SELF DETERMINATION , ie the opportunity to speak for himself, knowing full well what the outcome would be: total opposition to and rejection of Jewish emigration into Palestine.

Eckstein: You cannot know what Arab sentiment would have been without it, Omar.

Omar : there is ABSOLUTELY no doubt that the overwhelming opinion of the overwhelming majority of the Palestinian people was against Jewish emigration and against a Jewish “ homeland” in his, the Palestinians’, homeland.To contend otherwise is ridiculous.
That opposition and rejection are amply chronicled in the history of modern, post Balfour and mandate, Palestine as expressed in all available forms of expression: petitions and public delegations to British and international bodies , demonstrations, congresses, public meetings, strikes and several times :armed insurrections.
(Read, honestly if you can, the history of that period.)

ONCE again I reiterate that British/Zionist denial of the Palestinians’ right to SELF DETERMINATION had the primary OBJECTIVE of denying the Palestinian people the opportunity to speak for himself through legitimate and truly representative representatives. (Can you think of any other reason Prof!!!)

Eckstein: Indeed, your argument about Deir Yassin is that it had stayed neutral in the violence before being attacked by the Irgun. NEUTRAL? Amid fighting between Jews and Arabs? Think about it.

Omar: Well it seems that you have progressed, Professor, from inane extrapolation to outright FABRICATION.
Where ever did I maintain that :
” your (Omar’s) argument about Deir Yassin is that it had stayed neutral in the violence before being attacked by the Irgun.”

Eckstein: What we DO know is that many Arabs sold land voluntarily to the Jews throughout the period 1870-1948, and that the selling intensified in the 1920s (and include sales to Jewish buyers--at high prices--of property by Amin al-Husseini's own cousin), and that each act was voluntary.

Omar: some did , mostly non Palestinian absent land holders ( mainly Lebanese).
However the crucial question is HOW MUCH LAND WAS SOLD BY PALESTINIAN OR ALL ARABS TO JEWS?
At no time did Jewish land ownership EXCEED 7%* of the total area of Palestine, and that includes public domain lands “sold “ to Jews by the British mandatory administration despite Palestinian Arab opposition; the 80% of the total population.
(*:Possibly less than Japanese land holding in Manhattan!)

Eckstein: And if you want to talk about "demographic invasion" as somehow and per se ILLEGITIMATE, then are you advocating the "relocation" of those millions of Muslim immigrants in European countries back to their countries of origin? That is the logic of your position, and after all, MANY of them are explicit that they wish, as one put if, "for the Black Flag of Islam to fly over (the British) Parliament.".

Omar:
1-
The “demographic invasion” of Palestine by Jews was ILLIGITIMATE for being:
a-Against the express will of the majority of the Palestinian people and counter to his expressed opposition
b-politically motivated aiming at establishing a Jewish colony in Palestine.

2-
a-Should any European, or other, nation/state feel threatened by an Islamic political , colonialist or otherwise, threat it would be within its undoubted legal, legitimate, right to ask of them to leave and should they refuse to relocate them back into their countries of origin .
a- The overwhelming majority of Arabs and/or Moslems presently residing in Europe gained admission thereto by legal means and the full acceptance of the legitimate governments of those countries representing their respective people(s).
Illegal residents are being, or will be, deported ....and rightly so!

Eckstein: The logic of your position, Omar, is that these people--some of whom have already committed terrorism of the vilest kind in Europe for their politico-religious purposes--should all be expelled from Europe as part of "demographic invasion". Do you advocate this?

Omar:
1_ Your inane sentece has nothing to do with the topic under discussion;it is superfluous and irrelevant.
2-MORE IMPORTANTLY:Your interpretation of my words have absolutely no connection to my “logic” nor to my actual words .
That is more of your EXTRAPOLATION but mainly, recently, ( not to use another word) your FABRICATIONS; Professor!!!.

N. Friedman -
8/28/2008

Omar,

As I said, if you advance a real argument - even if you get some facts wrong, as all people do -, there is something to which I might respond.

If, instead, you present an argument that cannot possibly be true even if your facts were, for argument's sake, unambiguously true, there is nothing to respond to other than to point such problem out.

That you persist, without giving a second's thought to the fact that your argument is wrong because it is, technically speaking, an invalid argument, forces me to conclude that you see no reason not to advance a stupid argument. Rather than allow you to propagandize nonsense, I called a spade a spade, meaning I called the argument stupid, which it is.

Now, if you want to move past stupid arguments, I can address any real arguments you may have.

I note that you suggest I was supporting a position. No, Omar, I was stating the obvious, which was that your argument makes no sense at any level. It is based on a complete misunderstanding of what an argument is. It is, frankly, ignorant and stupid.

Now, this time you have asserted something akin to a real argument, which I shall now address. You write:

I am NOT a lawyer but that much I know: it is "illegal", illegitimate and legally unacceptable, to reach a verdict on an issue if a main, the main, party concerned was absent or NOT represented by representative approved by him.

You continue:

The Palestinian people was made to be absent through out by the deliberate British/Zionist denial of his right to SELF DETERMINATION.

The UN offered partition, which would have provided for self-determination. Moreover, the partition plan did not prevent self-determination for Arabs even in the Jewish zone. Hence, your stated concern seems difficult to square with the facts as even you assert them to be.

Having read your posts for many years, your real concern here is that Jews were immigrating without the consent of the local Arab population and that Jews ought not have been afforded any self-determination in a land which you think belongs to Arabs.

Your point runs into the difficulty that not all Arabs took the position you take. Many - as in a very large percentage - were willing to sell land to the newcomers. That is entirely inconsistent with the view that the local population was not consulted. Every sale of land involved a vote in favor of the newcomers and their right to live on the land sold to them.

Moreover, it was not the custom of that period to consult the local population regarding immigration. It is not the custom today. Such was and is - and in most of the world, including in Europe to this day - the right of the ruler. In Europe, for example, there is substantial immigration by Arabs and Turks, which, were the local populations in Europe consulted, would never have occurred. And, with all the violence that the newcomers brought with them, such people would, if the local population were consulted, almost surely force such people out of Europe.

So, one cannot say that migration is illegitimate on the ground that the local population does not approve. One can only say that the local population does not approve - a fact that a ruler can consider or ignore at his or her benefit or peril, depending on how facts work out.

As for the rest of what you write, it is based on arguments I was not making. My prior argument was addressed to the lack of logic of your argument, which had no merit at all.

art eckstein -
8/28/2008

The main party wasn't absent, except insofar as it was kept from compromising by the violence of the Husseinis in 1948. You cannot know what Arab sentiment would have been without it, Omar.

Indeed, your argument about Deir Yassin is that it had stayed neutral in the violence before being attacked by the Irgun. NEUTRAL? Amid fighting between Jews and Arabs? Think about it.

What we DO know is that many Arabs sold land voluntarily to the Jews throughout the period 1870-1948, and that the selling intensified in the 1920s (and include sales to Jewish buyers--at high prices--of property by Amin al-Husseini's own cousin), and that each act was voluntary.

And if you want to talk about "demographic invasion" as somehow and per se ILLEGITIMATE, then are you advocating the "relocation" of those millions of Muslim immigrants in European countries back to their countries of origin? That is the logic of your position, and after all, MANY of them are explicit that they wish, as one put if, "for the Black Flag of Islam to fly over (the British) Parliament."

The logic of your position, Omar, is that these people--some of whom have already committed terrorism of the vilest kind in Europe for their politico-religious purposes--should all be expelled from Europe as part of "demographic invasion". Do you advocate this?

omar ibrahim baker -
8/28/2008

Mr Friedman
1-I can hurl personal insults as well; but would rather NOT.

2-I note with pleasure your total failure to comment on, i.e. your more than implicit support of, the denial of the Palestinian people his right to SELF DETERMINATION and its implications on the "legitimacy" issue you espouse.
I am NOT a lawyer but that much I know: it is "illegal", illegitimate and legally unacceptable, to reach a verdict on an issue if a main, the main, party concerned was absent or NOT represented by representative approved by him.

The Palestinian people was made to be absent through out by the deliberate British/Zionist denial of his right to SELF DETERMINATION.

3-I note with equal pleasure the nature of the "legitimacy" on which you base your arguments; being
the same “legitimacy” that once supported, upheld, French colonization of Algeria and the racist Apartheid system of South Africa etc etc

The sum of the above, 2 & 3, prove beyond any reasonable doubt the retrogressive, colonialist, nature of the Zionist conquest of Palestine that led to the "birth" of Israel and the total fallacy and patent insincerity of your, and yours, pretensions re "democracy" and "respect of human rights."

N. Friedman -
8/27/2008

Omar,

Something does not need to be yours in order for you to compromise on it. So, even if what you wrote were factually correct, it is still a stupid argument.

omar ibrahim baker -
8/27/2008

To compromise means to agree to give up part, or all, of what is yours!
Israel never gave up part or all of anything that is legitimately hers; hence its "compromise" is meaningless.
The colony known as Israel is in Palestine as a result of an act of demographic then military aggression.
(Hopefully you will try to resume your polite mode of address no matter how superficial and false it is.)

N. Friedman -
8/27/2008

Omar,

I am not saying that legitimacy is an irrelevancy. I am saying that it is entirely irrelevant to your argument that the Israelis made no compromise by accepting the UN partition plan in 1947. The legitimacy or illegitimacy of partition neither makes your proposition that there was no compromise more nor less likely to be correct. Or stated differently, one can compromise from a claim that is entirely illegitimate. That is a fact.

I suggest you take a course on logic. You will see that I am correct.

If you want an argument about legitimacy, make it. However do not assert that agreeing to take less than what one claims is due is something other than a compromise. That position is, frankly, a stupid one.

omar ibrahim baker -
8/27/2008

Mr Friedman
Hurling personal insults ("stupid") will get you no where!
Conversely I am never offended by such insults from you and yours; once again, if anything, it demonstrates your inborn inability to overcome your self inflicted blindness, it proves the fallacy and deceptiveness of your pretensions, re "democracy" and "human rights", and reveals the depth of your pathological commitment to your aggressive and racist doctrine :Zionism.

That is something we have known all along and neither surprises us nor offends us.

Speaking of your commitment, convictions, one can not but wonder about the psychological build up and mental formation, deformation actually, of those that glorify usurpation and rejoice in aggression; not that there is any thing new here.

Nor can one but wonder and ponder about those who live in homes knowing fully well that these homes legally belong to others and till lands knowing fully that its legitimate owner is denied his right to use it while he, the colon, has full use of it and full profit from it.

Not all of them, I presume, are aware of the foundations of YOUR "legitimacy" claim and some of them ,should they know that it is the same "legitimacy " awarded to Portuguese, French and Belgian colonialism and Apartheid South African racism, might reconsider BUT most of them will NOT and will go on enjoying their loot as much as any robber enjoys spending the money he obtained from his robbery.

Your retrogressive "legitimacy", that we have never conceded, have been overruled ,overthrown, superseded and discarded re colonialism and Apartheid racism as will, eventually, Israel's will be .
Ours, the Palestinian people’s, based on the inalienable right of indigenous peoples to determine their future via SELF DETERMINATION in their homelands will prevail .

art eckstein -
8/26/2008

I've mentioned the large-scale collaboration that existed between Arabs in the Mandate--without, I think, seeking to exaggerate things.

But among the major Arab collaborators with the Yishuv in 1948 was the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan: King Abdullah had a formal agreement from November 1947 not to attack on the central front in exchange for...for what? Well, for the West Bank going to the Kingdom! This agreement was broken by King Abdullah in May 1948, but still the impact was that by the end of fighting the entire area we now call the West Bank was in the control of Jordan--as the Jordanian elite had wished. Abdullah's assassination changed nothing about Jordanian ambitions west of the Jordan. Did they set up a Palestinian State? Of course not! The Jordanian govt at that time didn't recognize any "Palestinian people", only Arabs living south of Syria, east of the Jews, and west of the River--people they wished to exercise both practical control and legal sovereignty over and did.

For 20 years (1948-1967) the West Bank was part of Jordan, and appeared as such on maps. There was very little economic or educational development during this period (no universities, for instance--NONE. Not true now, is it? NO). But there was NO protest about "occupation" during that time, during those 20 years--oh, no. There was no international outrage, and especially not any orchestrated campaign of outrage and vicious slander from Arabs and Muslims.

So once more we see that Arab/Muslim RACISM determines reactions, not any general principles of human rights. It's not "occupation" per se that bothers most Arabs or Muslims--as long as it's Arabs and Muslims who are doing it. Look--again--at the indifference to Darfur.

N. Friedman -
8/26/2008

Professor,

I could not agree more.

N. Friedman -
8/26/2008

CORRECTION:

I hit the <s>submit</s> button too quickly. Please add:

By stupid, I mean that your argument is, technically speaking, nonsense because your argument does not address the issue of whether or not there was a compromise of a claim.

Stated differently, you are merely saying that you favor the justice of the Arab side's case, which is your privilege. But, that does not mean that the Jewish side failed to compromise from its own claim. Clearly, the Jewish side did.

N. Friedman -
8/26/2008

Omar,

My position had nothing to do with the justice of the situation because the argument you made and continue to make is wrong - as in illogical - even if justice were entirely on your side, which is certainly not the case.

Let me put it to you another way. Your argument is not, technically speaking, an argument. It is, logically speaking, stupid.

art eckstein -
8/26/2008

There was no immorality of the "Zionist conquest", Omar:

1. Arabs *voluntarily* sold land to Jews, and at high prices, and each action was *totally* voluntary, and more Arabs voluntarily sold land to Jews in the 1920s than in the previous 30 years combined. No immoral conquest involved there.

2. Other land was seized by conquest when a genocidal war was launched against the Jewish population which accepted the UN Agreement in 1947. When you lose a war--a war YOU start--you have to pay the consequences sometime. No immorality there, except on the Arab side, given their genocidal goals in 1948.

You, Omar, expect the Jews to pay the consequences of THEY lose the next war--that's for sure! The Arabs have had to pay the consequences of defeat as well. That's the way the world works, though obviously you don't want to accept that it works that way for the Favored of God.

I'd take your outrage more seriously, Omar, if you cared that 300,000 Darfurians had been *murdered* since 2005 by the Islamic government of the Sudan, and several hundred thousand more had forced to flee as penniless *refugees* by the Islamic government of Sudan. But all these hideous actions (far worse than 1948) come from a man whom the Arab League DEFENDS VIGOROUSLY against charges brought officially by the World Court that he is a war criminal!

THAT is the Arab world, Omar--so spare me your "outrage" about "abuses". Your outrage is strictly limited, and occurs not on the basis of principle, but only if Jews dare to win out against Arabs, thus revealing that they are not dhimmis.

omar ibrahim baker -
8/26/2008

Mr. Friedman
1-Consider the utter IMMORALITY of your position!
You accept happily, unquestioningly ,
and deem as “ legitimate”, and moral, the fact that, by denying the Palestinian people his right to SELF DETERMINATION, aliens, believing they know better or have the ”right" to determine the future of others ,( Is that NOT another facet of the old colonialist rationale?), took it upon themselves to determine his future and to support and empower a colonialist conquest of his homeland, Palestine, by Zionist/Jewish aliens .

This is, really, extremely telling about where you, and yours, stand re "democracy" and "respect of human rights"

It is also telling about the intrinsic nature of the pernicious outgrowth from the doctrine and the nation/state that held and now holds such retrogressive beliefs

However about the utter immorality, hence illegality, of the Zionist colonialist conquest of Palestine and the utter morality, and hence legality, of our fight we have absolutely no doubt.
It matters a great deal to us, unlike you and yours, whether our fight is moral or NOT, legitimate or NOT; whether we are liberators to be or, paralleling you, embarking on a colonialist mission..
( There is such a thing as RIGHT and WRONG , in life; is there NOT??)

I note with great interest and pleasure that despite your pretensions re " democracy" and "human rights" you consistently avoid and ignore the cardinal, decisive fact that the Palestinian people was DENIED his inalienable human right to SELF DETERMINATION.

2- ALSO Consider the “legitimacy” you defend; Mr Friedman

The "legitimacy" that you refer to (What matters is that the Mandate existed and was believed to be legitimate ....) is the very same “legitimacy " that the Portuguese once had re Angola, the French re Algeria, Belguim re the Congo etc ; that "legitimacy" never changed nor detracted from the fact of all being "colonialists".
Further more Apartheid South Africa was also ”legitimate”, was endowed and enjoyed being "legitimate"
by that same "legitimacy" criterion for some time , was it NOT?

For you to ponder that most of the world at one time deemed Portuguese and French colonialism and South African racist system "legitimate", as they do now re Israel’s
“legitimacy”, all according to the same "legitimacy" standard that you embrace, adopt and espouse??
Good for you and yours!

art eckstein -
8/26/2008

Yes--for instance, as a gesture of good faith the Israeli government today released Said al-Atba a murderer of Israeli women, who poses as a "resistance" fighter. This murderer of innocents was greeted as a *hero* on the West Bank.

No doubt to Omar the Israeli action today is proof not of Israeli desire for peace but proof either of (a) some sort of Israeli secret malevolence or--in contradictory fashion--(b) proof of the triumphant power of Islam, which will drive Jews to the wall, with this murderer of women as an example of an ideal Muslim warrior. Of course, with Omar it is possible for him to hold *both* sentiments simultaneously, isn't it?

N. Friedman -
8/26/2008

I failed to mention one minor point. It is possible for a party to make an honor in bad faith.

While such is inherent in my point that making an offer of compromise is an offer of compromise even if, on some cosmic view of justice, the underlying claim might fail to persuade objective judges, it is better to make clear what is meant by an offer. Such better distinguishes a real offer of compromise from one made in bad faith.

N. Friedman -
8/26/2008

Professor,

Omar's point is that the Palestine Mandate is illegitimate, objectively speaking; hence, to Omar the acceptance by the Yishuv leadership and Yishuv people of the UN partition plan involved no compromise. To say that his argument is a logical non-sequitur is to be kind.

Before addressing his logic error, one might ask Omar how he knows that Palestine Mandate is illegitimate. One might also ask Omar's qualifications to opine on legal matters. One might ask Omar how it is that the UN, to this day, accepts the Palestine Mandate as legitimate - in fact, it is legitimatized in the UN Charter itself -, as does the ICJ. These may create substantial hurdles for Omar to overcome, even if his argument were logically sound, which is not the case.

Turning to the point that is important to refuting Omar's argument, the fact is that it really does not matter, for purposes of determining whether a compromise was offered, whether, objectively speaking, a claim is legitimate. What matters is that it is believed to be legitimate.

Claims, after all, are what disputes always involve. Each side to a dispute, if the parties are acting sincerely, always have disputing claims. If the claims can be compromised, there is a compromise. If one party proposes a compromise from that party's own claim, that party has proposed a compromise. That is the be all and end all of the matter.

art eckstein -
8/26/2008

We have no way of knowing whether the Arab population of the Mandate would have voluntarily accepted a partition in 1948: their leaders did not give them the choice of acceptance of partition or not, but simply launched a genocidal war; and this was a "leadership" often imposed via terror (the Husseini's were famous for this).

There was plenty of Arab collaboration with the Jews, including during 1948 ( the Druze and the Bedouins, most famously). This suggests that the political situation was actually very complex.

N. Friedman -
8/26/2008

Omar,

Consider the irrationality of your position. Logically, it matters not whether the Mandate was legitimate or illegitimate.

What matters is that the Mandate existed and was believed to be legitimate by those who acted under its authority - which is clearly the case. Moreover, it is enshrined as legitimate in the founding Charter of the United Nations so that if the Mandate is, as you claim, illegitimate, those who acted based on it still did so in good faith.

Ergo, to those who followed the Mandate, giving up something provided for in the Mandate was a concession. That follows as a matter of logic and common sense.

omar ibrahim baker -
8/26/2008

Mr Friedman
I deny and refuse to accept the binding "legality" of the Mandate; not its existence as a historical fact.
Even you, with unbounded ill will, can see the difference!

N. Friedman -
8/26/2008

Omar,

In other words, you deny the existence of the Palestine Mandate and the existence of the UN partition.

Fine. If that is your position, I leave it to those who can read to laugh at you.

omar ibrahim baker -
8/26/2008

Mr Friedman
To concede that Israel's acceptance of UNGA resolution re the Partition of Palestine, a resolution it NEVER implemented, is:
1-To concede that there was/is an Israeli "right" to all of or part of Palestine.
No such thing ever existed. Israel’s claim to such a right is baseless and unfounded and as such its claim is void and null.
2-to accept that the "compromise" emanated from an attempt, a process, to settle a dispute by an arbitrator, or equivalent, approved by both disputing parties.
The Palestinian people never approved, through legally elected or appointed "legitimate" representatives, of any such arbitrator.
By withholding his right to SELF DETERMINATION the Palestinian people was DENIED the right to elect and/or approve his representatives.
3-To approve and partake in the effort to conceal the true nature of the Zionist conquest of Palestine as a "colonialist" conquest.
4-To discount and discard the historical fact that Israel itself, through its rejection to abide by and to implement that resolution, is in a virtual state of negation and rejection of that resolution.

I sum up my overall position as follows: the fact that the party most concerned and affected by the issue, the Palestinian people, was DENIED the right to speak for itself and defend its interests through the implementation of his RIGHT to SELF DETERMINATION; this undeniable fact voids, nullifies and annuls ALL measures and resolutions taken re this issue in which he, the Palestinian people, is the party most concerned and most affected,

art eckstein -
8/26/2008

I've been away at an academic conference, and I see that Omar has been outdoing himself.

I've listed the official decrees. TOGETHER they constitute an official governmental program of expulsion, although there is also one that explicitly expells.

If the Israeli government did ANY of these measures--for instance depriving of citizenship any Israeli Arab who expressed support for Fatah or Hamas--HOW Omar would scream, including screaming racism!

But if the same thing is done by Arabs to Jews, he's prepared to enter into automatic denial even in the face of specific laws with specific dates.

Omar it's simple: you don't need to have a general law of expulsion if you have a SEQUENCE of RACIST laws that lead to the same thing.

Well, I write this, but it's probably too late in the conversation.

I note that Omar was unable--again--to take up Mr. Friedman's challenge!

N. Friedman -
8/25/2008

Omar,

You seem to be repeating yourself.

Two parties vie for one home. One party agrees to split the home. The other party says the whole house is his (or hers). It matters not which party has the better claim to the whole thing. The party willing to split the home has made a compromise, by definition.

By definition, the acceptance of the UN Partition plan was a compromise. It split the land. That, no matter who has the best claim to the entire area (or even part of it) makes the acceptance of that plan into the acceptance of a compromise.

If you want to say otherwise, that is your pleasure. However, accepting less than the whole of what is claimed is, by definition, a compromise.

As for your citation to the assassinated Bernadotte, that is irrelevant to the point. Moreover, it occurred after the compromise offer was rejected by the Arab side and, more than that, after the Arab side decided to start a war.

The fact is that the Israeli side conceded territory on which it had a claim - whether or not the claim was a good one or a ridiculous one being irrelevant to whether there was a compromise. At least that is the case in the English language. Maybe it is different in other languages. I doubt it.

N. Friedman -
8/25/2008

Omar,

You seem to be repeating yourself.

Two parties vie for one home. One party agrees to split the home. The other party says the whole house is his (or hers). It matters not which party has the better claim to the whole thing. The party willing to split the home has made a compromise, by definition.

By definition, the acceptance of the UN Partition plan was a compromise. It split the land. That, no matter who has the best claim to the entire area (or even part of it) makes the acceptance of that plan into the acceptance of a compromise.

If you want to say otherwise, that is your pleasure. However, accepting less than the whole of what is claimed is, by definition, a compromise.

As for your citation to the assassinated Bernadotte, that is irrelevant to the point. Moreover, it occurred after the compromise offer was rejected by the Arab side and, more than that, after the Arab side decided to start a war.

The fact is that the Israeli side conceded territory on which it had a claim - whether or not the claim was a good one or a ridiculous one being irrelevant to whether there was a compromise. At least that is the case in the English language. Maybe it is different in other languages. I doubt it.

omar ibrahim baker -
8/25/2008

Mr Friedman
"Gee wiz, Omar,..." you say!
What is that Mr. Friedman?
I thought I was conversing with an adult !

Going back to the start of this particular leg I would like to remind of my earlier request:” Hoping you will include "substantial" compromises only to spare your self amd me wasting our time on unsubstantial points”
You can Not in all sincerity and objectivity, difficult as that may be, mean that Israel’s “acceptance” of the Partition of Palestine, unwarranted and undeserved as that was/ is , is an Israeli “ substantial compromise” or “sacrifice”!
It was neither for the obvious reason that its “acceptance” of the UNGA Partition resolution was simply and solely a clever public , PR wise, tactical move that Israel, from day one of its establishment, showed its utter unwillingness to abide by or respect by retaining lands it occupied beyond its UNGA Partition resolution allocation.
(Lord Folke Bernadotte, a UN mediator, and his French ADC were assassinated by Zionist agents for trying to implement UNGA resolutions, were they NOT??)
Events and developments were NOT late in showing, indisputably, that Israel was always on the look out for a second opportunity to grab more land at the first available opportunity; which it did post 1967.

That so called “acceptance” was, is, a PR ploy no more no less with absolutely no credibility at all that all the world is progressively realizing and with it perceiving the real nature of Zionism/ Israel.

I am happy that you describe and deem Israel’s “acceptance”, though utterly false, of the Partition resolution as a “compromise” and a “sacrifice; for that is proof positive of what I have been maintaining all along: Zionism’s and Israel’s greed and insatiable appetite for more Palestinian, and Arab, land for as big a Zionist
“colony” as it can get which only goes to confirm its intrinsic aggressive and expansionist nature.

I think it is “healthy” for all concerned to come out into the open, as I Have been consistently doing all along, and stop pretending so I urge you to go on telling us all that you have about Israel’s other
“sacrifices” and “compromises”!

omar ibrahim baker -
8/25/2008

Mr Friedman
"Gee wiz, Omar,..." you say!
What is that Mr. Friedman?
I thought I was conversing with an adult !

Going back to the start of this particular leg I would like to remind of my earlier request:” Hoping you will include "substantial" compromises only to spare your self amd me wasting our time on unsubstantial points”
You can Not in all sincerity and objectivity, difficult as that may be, mean that Israel’s “acceptance” of the Partition of Palestine, unwarranted and undeserved as that was/ is , is an Israeli “ substantial compromise” or “sacrifice”!
It was neither for the obvious reason that its “acceptance” of the UNGA Partition resolution was simply and solely a clever public , PR wise, tactical move that Israel, from day one of its establishment, showed its utter unwillingness to abide by or respect by retaining lands it occupied beyond its UNGA Partition resolution allocation.
(Lord Folke Bernadotte, a UN mediator, and his French ADC were assassinated by Zionist agents for trying to implement UNGA resolutions, were they NOT??)
Events and developments were NOT late in showing, indisputably, that Israel was always on the look out for a second opportunity to grab more land at the first available opportunity; which it did post 1967.

That so called “acceptance” was, is, a PR ploy no more no less with absolutely no credibility at all that all the world is progressively realizing and with it perceiving the real nature of Zionism/ Israel.

I am happy that you describe and deem Israel’s “acceptance”, though utterly false, of the Partition resolution as a “compromise” and a “sacrifice; for that is proof positive of what I have been maintaining all along: Zionism’s and Israel’s greed and insatiable appetite for more Palestinian, and Arab, land for as big a Zionist
“colony” as it can get which only goes to confirm its intrinsic aggressive and expansionist nature.

I think it is “healthy” for all concerned to come out into the open, as I Have been consistently doing all along, and stop pretending so I urge you to go on telling us all that you have about Israel’s other
“sacrifices” and “compromises”!

omar ibrahim baker -
8/25/2008

Mr Friedman
"Gee wiz, Omar,..." you say!
What is that Mr. Friedman?
I thought I was conversing with an adult !

Going back to the start of this particular leg I would like to remind of my earlier request:” Hoping you will include "substantial" compromises only to spare your self amd me wasting our time on unsubstantial points”
You can Not in all sincerity and objectivity, difficult as that may be, mean that Israel’s “acceptance” of the Partition of Palestine, unwarranted and undeserved as that was/ is , is an Israeli “ substantial compromise” or “sacrifice”!
It was neither for the obvious reason that its “acceptance” of the UNGA Partition resolution was simply and solely a clever public , PR wise, tactical move that Israel, from day one of its establishment, showed its utter unwillingness to abide by or respect by retaining lands it occupied beyond its UNGA Partition resolution allocation.
(Lord Folke Bernadotte, a UN mediator, and his French ADC were assassinated by Zionist agents for trying to implement UNGA resolutions, were they NOT??)
Events and developments were NOT late in showing, indisputably, that Israel was always on the look out for a second opportunity to grab more land at the first available opportunity; which it did post 1967.

That so called “acceptance” was, is, a PR ploy no more no less with absolutely no credibility at all that all the world is progressively realizing and with it perceiving the real nature of Zionism/ Israel.

I am happy that you describe and deem Israel’s “acceptance”, though utterly false, of the Partition resolution as a “compromise” and a “sacrifice; for that is proof positive of what I have been maintaining all along: Zionism’s and Israel’s greed and insatiable appetite for more Palestinian, and Arab, land for as big a Zionist
“colony” as it can get which only goes to confirm its intrinsic aggressive and expansionist nature.

I think it is “healthy” for all concerned to come out into the open, as I Have been consistently doing all along, and stop pretending so I urge you to go on telling us all that you have about Israel’s other
“sacrifices” and “compromises”!

omar ibrahim baker -
8/25/2008

Mr Friedman
"Gee wiz, Omar,..." you say!
What is that Mr. Friedman?
I thought I was conversing with an adult !

Going back to the start of this particular leg I would like to remind of my earlier request:” Hoping you will include "substantial" compromises only to spare your self amd me wasting our time on unsubstantial points”
You can Not in all sincerity and objectivity, difficult as that may be, mean that Israel’s “acceptance” of the Partition of Palestine, unwarranted and undeserved as that was/ is , is an Israeli “ substantial compromise” or “sacrifice”!
It was neither for the obvious reason that its “acceptance” of the UNGA Partition resolution was simply and solely a clever public , PR wise, tactical move that Israel, from day one of its establishment, showed its utter unwillingness to abide by or respect by retaining lands it occupied beyond its UNGA Partition resolution allocation.
(Lord Folke Bernadotte, a UN mediator, and his French ADC were assassinated by Zionist agents for trying to implement UNGA resolutions, were they NOT??)
Events and developments were NOT late in showing, indisputably, that Israel was always on the look out for a second opportunity to grab more land at the first available opportunity; which it did post 1967.

That so called “acceptance” was, is, a PR ploy no more no less with absolutely no credibility at all that all the world is progressively realizing and with it perceiving the real nature of Zionism/ Israel.

I am happy that you describe and deem Israel’s “acceptance”, though utterly false, of the Partition resolution as a “compromise” and a “sacrifice; for that is proof positive of what I have been maintaining all along: Zionism’s and Israel’s greed and insatiable appetite for more Palestinian, and Arab, land for as big a Zionist
“colony” as it can get which only goes to confirm its intrinsic aggressive and expansionist nature.

I think it is “healthy” for all concerned to come out into the open, as I Have been consistently doing all along, and stop pretending so I urge you to go on telling us all that you have about Israel’s other
“sacrifices” and “compromises”!

omar ibrahim baker -
8/25/2008

Mr Friedman
"Gee wiz, Omar,..." you say!
What is that Mr. Friedman?
I thought I was conversing with an adult !

Going back to the start of this particular leg I would like to remind of my earlier request:” Hoping you will include "substantial" compromises only to spare your self amd me wasting our time on unsubstantial points”
You can Not in all sincerity and objectivity, difficult as that may be, mean that Israel’s “acceptance” of the Partition of Palestine, unwarranted and undeserved as that was/ is , is an Israeli “ substantial compromise” or “sacrifice”!
It was neither for the obvious reason that its “acceptance” of the UNGA Partition resolution was simply and solely a clever public , PR wise, tactical move that Israel, from day one of its establishment, showed its utter unwillingness to abide by or respect by retaining lands it occupied beyond its UNGA Partition resolution allocation.
(Lord Folke Bernadotte, a UN mediator, and his French ADC were assassinated by Zionist agents for trying to implement UNGA resolutions, were they NOT??)
Events and developments were NOT late in showing, indisputably, that Israel was always on the look out for a second opportunity to grab more land at the first available opportunity; which it did post 1967.

That so called “acceptance” was, is, a PR ploy no more no less with absolutely no credibility at all that all the world is progressively realizing and with it perceiving the real nature of Zionism/ Israel.

I am happy that you describe and deem Israel’s “acceptance”, though utterly false, of the Partition resolution as a “compromise” and a “sacrifice; for that is proof positive of what I have been maintaining all along: Zionism’s and Israel’s greed and insatiable appetite for more Palestinian, and Arab, land for as big a Zionist
“colony” as it can get which only goes to confirm its intrinsic aggressive and expansionist nature.

I think it is “healthy” for all concerned to come out into the open, as I Have been consistently doing all along, and stop pretending so I urge you to go on telling us all that you have about Israel’s other
“sacrifices” and “compromises”!

N. Friedman -
8/25/2008

Gee wiz, Omar, you must have trouble reading.

The acceptable of the UN partition plan meant accepting the sharing of rule with Arabs. Which is to say, your comment makes no sense.

omar ibrahim baker -
8/25/2008

Mr. Friedman
We do NOT consider that Jewish acceptance of UNGA resolution to Partition Palestine to be, according to your interpretation of the terms of the mandate, neither a "sacrifice" nor a "compromise".

This, your statement, belies your earlier words wherein you claimed that Jews were only looking for an "accommodation” and simply wanted to be allowed in to “share” Palestine with its indigenous people.

It confirms my often repeated statement that Zionism was, still is, after "A Palestine as Jewish as France is French", in Weisman's words, and our belief that Israel is presently after that as well.
We never had any doubt about it and you, the presumed "moderate", coming out with it in the open and adopting it should leave no doubt in anybody's mind about Zionism's, and Israel's, innate nature as an expansionist doctrine and state.

We deem it to be intrinsically wrong to ever partake in a "dialogue" re the terms of the mandate, and its assumed equivalence to "international law" according to you, since we consider it to be void , null and intrinsically "illegal" and
"illegitimate" having neglected the primary factor of the whole issue namely: the will of the people of the land in question, the Palestinian people, by denying them of their right to SELF DETERMINATION.

By building its whole "legality" edifice on that denial Zionism, and Israel, confirm their COLONIALIST inherent nature ", as much as Portugal’s in Angola or Belgium’s in the Congo (inter alia), unveil, reassert and confirm their true aggressive and racist nature and prove beyond any doubt the fallacy of their pretensions to being
"democratic”; a fact that the whole world is progressively realizing.

N. Friedman -
8/25/2008

Omar,

Regarding Arafat, I noted that he was recorded. That means that your statement of his words being open to question has been shown to be wrong. I not only noted who recorded the broadcast but I noted his words.

As for 1947 and the UN proposal, your view stating the Arab position does not alter the fact - and it is a fact - that, under International law, the Israel's Jews made a real sacrifice. That you are not able to understand the Jewish side of the argument is, frankly, beyond me. You may wish that there were only one side to the story but the fact - and it is a fact - is that Jews made sacrifices.

You can say the UN was out of line or that International law is wrong in the Palestine Mandate or the UN partition plan. That, however, does not alter the fact that the Palestine Mandate permitted Jewish settlement far more broadly than the Green line. That is a fact. And, it does not alter the fact that the UN partition plan offered less than what, under the Palestine Mandate, the Jewish side could have anticipated being awarded.

As for the land being Arab or Muslim, so what? America was once native American Indian. In fact, it was such for far longer time than the Middle East was Arab. It is not Arab land anymore. That is, whether you like it or not, International law. Israel is a country in the UN. Ergo, it is legitimate, as a matter of LAW. In that regard, it is no more or less legitimate than the United States, Egypt, Jordan, Spain, China or any other country. The fact that Arabs have memory of ruling the land - maybe a thousand years ago but not since- is interesting history. It means nothing today.

omar ibrahim baker -
8/24/2008

2-Re Jewish "compromise" in 1947 by which I presume you refer to Jewish acceptance of the Partition of Palestine UNGA resolution.
Well here I guess we are at the junction where we will NEVER agree.

Your primary reference, starting, point is your intrepretation of the terms of the Mandate

Mine is the undeniable historical fact that Palestine is, has been for the last fourteen centuries, at least, an Arab country that was the object of a colonialist conquest by aliens empowered by an imperialistic power.

WE believe that denying the Palestinian people his Right to SELF DETERMINATION, post WWI,which would have ,certainly , denied Jewish colons access to Palestine, overrides, overrules, nullifies and voids the terms of the Mandate ; no matter how you interpret them.

3-I note you have shied away from answering my specific questions about Arafaat's words, to which you give greater weight than officialy agreed documents and official, including PNA resolutions, even when I assummed he actually said them and Meant them.

What the whole thing boils down to, in real politik terms , is that Israel managed to resume its expansionist policies with the pretension that the Palestinians were not serious, Arafaat giving it a handy excuse!

That Arafaat possibly gave Israel a nice, PR wise, excuse or justification
is, under the circumstances , maitainable.
However he certainly DID not change Israel's strategic policies and outlook with his words.

N. Friedman -
8/24/2008

Omar,

Perhaps you might gain my respect by honing to the factual record. At the moment, I am rather tired of debating with a person unwilling to do so.

In 1947, the Jewish side accepted the UN compromise. Had the Arab side accepted that compromise plan, there would have been a much larger Arab territory than came to be after that war. That is a fact.

Recall that accepting the UN Compromise meant that the Jewish side was agreeing to less than what was set forth under International law, namely, the Palestine Mandate. You may feel or believe that the Mandate was wrong but, nonetheless, it was a sacrifice to agree to cede territory which, according to the Palestine Mandate, was for Jewish settlement.

In 2000, the Jewish side accepted President Clinton's proposed compromise. Arafat did not accept it. That is another fact.

As for what Arafat said, there is, to my knowledge, no doubt what Arafat said because his speech was recorded by South African journalist Bruce Whitfield. It is not disputable since the recording is available.

Quoting Arafat's words (about the Oslo agreement) from that speech: "I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraysh in Mecca."

Moreover, Arafat further noted that Muhammad had been criticized for his diplomacy by `Umar ibn al-Khattab, indicating that the Muhammad had been right to insist on the agreement. This, according to Arafat, is because the agreement helped Muhammad defeat the Quraysh and the city of Mecca. Arafat also stated: "we now accept the peace agreement, but to continue on the road to Jerusalem."

I am not a mind reader. I do not know what was in Arafat's heart. However, I think it rather odd for Arafat to place Oslo into the context of that famous treaty.

As for what the Israeli government thought, you will have to ask them. I do not work for them. Presumably, the thought occurred to at least some of them that Arafat might be a modern day Sidon.

My take on the Arab side is that they acted in bad faith. I think they were dominated by people like you, who are unable to compromise and who have been so thoroughly conditioned by the lunacy of religion as well as the thought processes of the likes of the Nazi lover and war criminal al-Husseini, that they are morally and intellectually incapacitated.

omar ibrahim baker -
8/23/2008

Mr Friedman
1-Would you care to tell us where and how did Israel compromise.
Hoping you will include "substantial" compromises only to spare your self amd me wasting our time on unsubstantial points .

2-Re Arafaat's alleged refererence to Hudaibiya: it is hear say reported by some press that he strenuously denied.

However assuming that he actually said it; are we to understand, or assume,
a- that Israel will, would, in formulating its strategic policies discount, forgo and neglect all signed agreements and official declarations (including the PNA , Palestinian National Assembly, resolution made in Gaza in the presence of then President Clinton recognizing the “legitimate” existence of the state of Israel ) and give equal ,or more, weight to media reports??

Also assuming that he, Arafaat, said it and MEANT it:
b- are things that simple?
c-does any state at all in formulating its policies in matters as crucial as a Palestinian/Israeli agreement is to Israel depend on what Arafaat , or who so ever, may say or may mean or actually says and means?
d- does NOT all states include in their agreements provisions for the eventuality that either or both contracting parties may renege on their agreement(s) ??
And make political and military provisions for that eventuality??

The simplest of business agreements have a clause for “settlement of disputes”;
e- are we to understand that no such provision was contemplated for what would have amounted to a fateful agreement ??

Hopefully you will be serious and show some respect to the general reader in answering these questions.

N. Friedman -
8/23/2008

Omar,

The Israelis have offered compromises on multiple occasions. That is a fact.

The Arab side claims to have compromised - more or less as you state -, except that Arafat, the day after making the compromise, said that his compromise was to be understood as one understands the treaty of Hudabiyyah. In other words, he was looking for a truce and only a truce and he never accepted Israel on any land.

omar ibrahim baker -
8/23/2008

Mr Friedman
You pontificate:
” You might consider that the reason why some people outside the Arab regions excuse attitudes like your is that they think such higher level of thought to be beyond your ability. In other words, most of these politically motivated people are racists.”

What ever “people outside the Arab regions” think or has to say , if from a neutral party, is of SECONDARY and in some cases, as with you, is of TERTIARY importance in the ongoing war.

It is, of course, important to know what one’s enemy things but it is much more important to recall that any thing he has to say springs from his desire to serve his own, our enemy’s, cause; that recollection is the one with the Primary importance!

Your and some of yours constant rehash of the need for "compromise" has been revealed for all and sundry for what it truly is: a PR ploy, no more no less.

Israel is the party that has NEVER contemplated or accepted compromise in its unwavering and obsessive ambition for how best to ZIONIZE, i.e. colonize, ALL of historical Palestine.

The Palestinians has made the, historically, most drastic imaginable compromise by accepting the very existence of Israel in 72% of Palestine, that is within pre 1967 “borders”.

They were rewarded, as anticipated by some including myself, with ever escalating demands and measures that brought their compromise to nil namely : the annexation of Jerusalem and , the still ongoing, construction and expansion of settlements from day one post 1967 and then of the wall (all patently land grabbing measures) and most recently by the call for an ALL JEWISH ,i.e. Arab free, “Israel”.
This call presages a NEW Zionist ethnic cleansing campaign of Arabs still living in their historical homeland awaiting for the suitable international conditions to be implemented.
(Whether I approved of that compromise or NOT is immaterial do not dwell on that.
The important thing is that it was made.)

Had you been following what I write you must have noticed that my invariable call was for the DEZIONIZATION of Israel that I repeatedly defined as “ to abandon the impossible dream of an exclusively or predominantly Jewish Palestine” leading to a Palestine, or a Palrael or an Israpal, in which we all, indigenous and newcomers (now established colons) live with EQUAL RIGHTS.

That is the only “compromise” I, among many, will ever accept.

By the way Israel’s policies and practices, by making a viable separate Palestinian state a practical impossibility, leaves the Palestinian People, the Arab and Moslem worlds with no other option to struggle and fight for than for a Dezionized Israel...and the war will go on and on; stretch , expand and involve more and more peoples and nations until the “ Israeli” people , if he retains his democracy (which I doubt), realizes the impossibility of a Zionist Palestine!

N. Friedman -
8/22/2008

Actually, Omar, Morris was never against Zionism. He, unlike your way of thinking, was of the view that one can examine the historical record carefully and on its own terms. So, he certainly did not convert to a new view.

Where he has run into objection, in this case from politically motivated people, is his view that had, in fact, the Israelis actually sought to expel the Arab population so that there really was a complete separation between the two sides, peace might more readily have been achieved. In this regard, he has the expulsions from Poland, from the former Czechoslovakia and, to a lesser extent, from Turkey and from Greece.

Those politically motivated people who prefer to lie claim that he favors expelling Arabs - something he never said or even hinted -.

As for permitting Jewish migration to a land that, on your telling, was 80% Arab, such is the normal stuff of history. One can only say, North America was 100% non-European at one time and so was South America. There were no Arabs outside of Arabia at one time. Such is the stuff of history. So-called Arab land was always just plain land, subject to the whims of its rulers.

Had the Arab side, instead of giving in to the moral midget, Nazi war criminal named Haj al-Husseini, sought a compromise with all who lived in the country, there could have been peace and an honorable peace for all involved. But, that did not occur. Instead, Al-Husseini and his thuggish followers created a war that has done your family no good, turning you into the bitter person who, to go by your telling, thinks that massacres committed during war are justified self-defense instead of what they are, unjustified and immoral.

Compare your view to that view of Morris: to Morris, not everything his side, on his telling, did was justified or moral, just as not everything the Arab side did was justified or moral. The day that you can admit that, Omar, will be the day that you will have learned to think instead of mimic the rhetoric you are brainwashed with. And, that day will be a big step toward finding an honorable compromise.

You might consider that the reason why some people outside the Arab regions excuse attitudes like your is that they think such higher level of thought to be beyond your ability. In other words, most of these politically motivated people are racists. I might also add that those who believe that massacres are legitimate self-defense are moral midgets.

omar ibrahim baker -
8/22/2008

Mr Friedman
Coming from Morris , after his repentance, reconversion to Zionism and readmission into Zionist Israeli favour I guess what he documents about Zionist/Jewish massacres of Palestinians is a “must” ie the bare inescapable minimum that it would be foolhardy and credibility damaging to miss or ignore!

However as far as I am concerned all Arab war like activities were in legitimate self defense against an imperialistically, British, empowered Zionist colonialist conquest undertaken by aliens ,who entered Palestine against the express will of the Palestinian people, the 80% Arab pre British mandate.

N. Friedman -
8/22/2008

Omar,

From the same article about Morris' excellent book - a book I, unlike you, have read:

The Arabs, he claims, were responsible for only two large massacres: the December 1947 killing of 39 Jewish workers at the Haifa oil refinery and the Kfar Etzion slaughter of 150 Jews in May 1948.

Note that the Kfar Etzion massacre was on the scale of the massacre at Deir Yassin.

Also note that the article does not mention the many massacres committed by Arabs prior to the war including, for example: the Hebron massacre (133 Jews killed) of 1929, the Safed massacre (18 Jews killed) of 1929, the Beit Nabala massacre of December 14, 1947 (14 Jews killed), the Ben Yehuda Street bombing (55 Jews killed), Feb 23, 1948, etc., etc., etc. I believe that most of these massacres are mentioned in Morris' book.

You might consider reading Mr. Morris' book because it shows pretty clearly the role of the Arab side in creating a war that did not have to occur. The article's attempt to argue that the Arab side was not driven by traditional Arab and Muslim ideology is, frankly, ignorant. The reason that Morris does not provide more evidence on the subject is that his focus - where he was able to obtain documents more readily and written in his native tongue, Hebrew - was the Israeli side and thinking. In fact, there was substantial religious motivations against the founding of Israel.

N. Friedman -
8/22/2008

Omar,

The book is worth reading, although his information about the Arab side is, as with most of the new Israelis historians, less than it might be. That said, he does make it largely clear that the Arab side was largely to blame and that a major part of the blame was religion and stupidity.

omar ibrahim baker -
8/22/2008

The latest issue of Foreign Affairs has an intelligent review by Shlomo Ben Ami of Benny Morris' latest book .
I find the following extract to be timely and germane to te issue of this blog so I append it hereunder.
XXXXXXXXXXXXX

REWRITING THE CREATION

Morris' latest book, 1948, is likely to become the most definitive study of the first Arab-Israeli war. On each and every facet of the conflict -- military strategy, human rights abuses, the refugee crisis, diplomacy, and propaganda -- it is an extraordinary tour de force. Exhaustive, although at times exhausting, it is a meticulous and authoritative narrative.

Morris' scholarship spares no Israeli founding myth, especially not the notion of Israel's "purity of arms" (one element of the Israel Defense Force's code of ethics, which dictates that force be used only in the pursuit of soldiers' missions), an idea that remains central to the nation's self-image as morally superior to its enemies. Morris supports his arguments with vast numbers of primary sources and always places his findings in their proper context. The atrocities and evictions suffered by Arab communities took place sometimes in the storm of battle, sometimes as the Yishuv's forces sought to secure roads linking Jewish settlements, and frequently in response to explicit orders from generals on the battlefield. Morris shows that the Zionists committed more massacres than the Arabs, deliberately killed far more civilians and prisoners of war, and committed more acts of rape. The Arabs, he claims, were responsible for only two large massacres: the December 1947 killing of 39 Jewish workers at the Haifa oil refinery and the Kfar Etzion slaughter of 150 Jews in May 1948. With painstaking detail, Morris exonerates the Arab side for what others have called a massacre: the destruction of a convoy of doctors and nurses on Mount Scopus in April 1948. According to Morris, this incident was simply a battle.

N. Friedman -
8/21/2008

Omar,

You write: "The fish killer cum hyper /mega reader, however, still, seemingly, does not know
-that :reading is NOT a necessary and SUFFICIENT condition"

As Nietzsche said, "Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies." Thus far on this page, Omar, you have not shown that a single fact set forth against your conviction that Jews were not forced out of Arab countries is wrong.

The alternative to studying the historical record is to believe in folklore and myth. In other words, the alternative is to walk away from the factual record. That is fine is you want to be an ideologue - a man of conviction. It is useless if your interest is to study history or, frankly, any other scholarly subject.

You continue, with reference to that same "fish killer": "-that reading shall be objective in the sense of judging its material on its own merit and NOT on whether it confirms or negates his own bias(es)"

Ok. No dispute on this point.

You continue, again with reference to that "fish killer": "-that the reading should be undertaken with an open mind and NOT confined to what he has held, was for ,all along before the mega reading which enabled and enhanced his fish killing capacity was acquired!"

Of all the people who post regularly on this website, you are most guilty of not showing an open mind. Rather, you continue to cite "facts" which have, repeatedly, been shown to be incorrect.

You write: "-that knowledge, 'real unadulterated facts’, can come from many different sources and NOT , necessarily, from his own reading lists nor from his own favorite scholars"

No one disputes this point. What is disputed is reliance on, for example, Wikipedia, which is not a sufficiently credible source for the study of current events or history because anyone can edit it whether or not such person has any factual knowledge of the subject or not.

In your case, what is in issue is that you refuse to accept facts, preferring your prejudices a/k/a your convictions.

E. Simon -
8/21/2008

You must forgive Omar, Mr. Friedman.

He has taken to the position that any disagreement from you is based solely on the fact that you are a DHIMMI and DHIMMIS are prone to voice opposition to the Arab-Muslim line simply because they are petulant dhimmis and are in agreement for the purposes of solidarity ALONE! There is nothing intellectually redeeming in what you have to say! You are merely agreeing with other DHIMMIS in order to weaken the cause of the faithful whose superior opinions you have not been granted permission to question!

In other words, Omar is a regressive tribe-minded moron who likes to call the kettle black. And he's pissed that what you write calls into question the sense of superiority over you which he feels he's entitled to. Dhimmis are entitled to contempt, not intellectual respect. End of story.

N. Friedman -
8/21/2008

Omar,

Stop lying. I do not make up facts.

E. Simon -
8/21/2008

Omar

Warm farts + warm farts + warm farts = WARM FARTS

Oh yeah. And no intellectual dissent will be tolerated!

omar ibrahim baker -
8/21/2008

Mr Friedman
With your record and reputation for MANUFACTURING facts I beg to discard what you think!

omar ibrahim baker -
8/21/2008

The "fish killer" is back to haunt all the non readers of scholarly books ; that would, presumably he hopes and prays, include his own books!
The mega, or is it hyper?, reader is here with a new identity berating all those that do not read scholarly books designated by him including, or is primarily ?, his books.
The fish killer cum hyper /mega reader, however, still, seemingly, does not know
-that :reading is NOT a necessary and SUFFICIENT condition;
-that reading shall be objective in the sense of judging its material on its own merit and NOT on whether it confirms or negates his own bias(es);
-that the reading should be undertaken with an open mind and NOT confined to what he has held, was for ,all along before the mega reading which enabled and enhanced his fish killing capacity was acquired!
-that knowledge, “real unadulterated facts’, can come from many different sources and NOT , necessarily, from his own reading lists nor from his own favorite scholars
Hail to fish killing and to thee :the hyper fish killer.

N. Friedman -
8/21/2008

Omar,

Your position, in its entirety, is illogical and not supported by facts. As I see the matter, you show no interest in facts or history or anything of the sort. Your only interest is propaganda.

This is not to say that there is no argument to support Arabs in the dispute with Israel. It is, instead, to say that your argument is the best thing I have seen to help make the pro-Israel case. That, after all, is why many of us engage you. In simple terms, we can count on you to say inane, obviously wrong things to support overly simplistic arguments that are based on factoids, not facts.

N. Friedman -
8/21/2008

Second point, Omar,

Suppose I am wrong but, instead, the decree was, nonetheless, directed at Jews. How does that change anything, since, in fact, Jews were expelled in large numbers as a result of the decree?

N. Friedman -
8/21/2008

Omar,

I have pointed you to the decree. Go find it and show me I am wrong.

omar ibrahim baker -
8/21/2008

Mr Friedman
That was a question pure and simple!
However Re your:” Your position is untenable, both logically and factually."

Which position are you referring to?
Could it be?
A:” But his ceaseless attempts to mislead, misinform and deceive, at the service of the colonialist Zionist cause, makes him repeat again and again, banking on the assumed and hopefully presumed by him and ilk, ignorance of the non specialist reader , that hyper absurdity: that no Palestinian people existed/exists.”

OR is it ?
B:”Unless, once again, if you are a Texan you are NOT an American or if you are a Savoyard you are NOT French etc etc.”

OR is it ?
C:“In a childish vein corresponding to the childish assertion: what would anybody call the people of Frusia except Frusians ? And where would Frusians come from and belong to except Frusia??)

Kindly elaborate!

omar ibrahim baker -
8/21/2008

Simon
Hot air+hot air+hot air=HOT AIR

omar ibrahim baker -
8/21/2008

Mr Friedman
Once again kindly document, show, indicate,pinpoint, support your contention that:" There was a decree expelling Jews."
KEY word is JEW NOT decree!

N. Friedman -
8/21/2008

Omar,

In other words, you have no argument against the position I stated. There is a reason for that. Your position is untenable, both logically and factually.

N. Friedman -
8/21/2008

Omar,

There was a decree expelling Jews. That is a fact. There were other decrees aimed at Jews but not naming them. They amounted to the same thing.

E. Simon -
8/21/2008

Do you believe that the dhimmis must always hold the same opinions that you do, Omar? Perhaps you need to reconquer them and demand intellectual submission from them at once! No wavering from the ideas of their betters will be accepted!

E. Simon -
8/21/2008

Right. Maybe everyone who disagrees with you is just not conforming or paying sufficient tribute to the opinions that must somehow be held by every Arab Muslim!

omar ibrahim baker -
8/21/2008

Your failure to answer my question :
"Did any of "...., official acts and laws involving sequestration without trial, economic strangulation and confiscation of property, deprivation of citizenship, and outright expulsion. "
1-officially name Jews as the object of those measures?"

Means that NONE DID name Jews as you claim which disproves and belies your earlier statement that:

“,In Egypt, there was an official proclamation that
Jews
would be expelled. That sounds pretty systematic to me.”( Re: Fundamental Differences (#126555)
by N. Friedman on August 19, 2008 at 9:38 AM)

In which you categorically state that the proclamation noted “that Jews would be expelled.”

That is yet another case of your and yours propensity and fondness to EXTRAPOLATE to the point of to manufacture and/or to falsify to achieve your ends.
Your joy and side kick’s jubilation in posts # 126584 & 126589 is definitely premature and, if any thing, is an attempt to hide the fact that you “manufacture “ facts as the one mentioned above and then to hide your ‘manufacture” foot prints you try to inundate the issue with unrelated words .
I will NOT respond here and now to the other points in your post which are primarily meant to divert attention from your manufacturing process.

N. Friedman -
8/20/2008

Omar,

You almost have made a point. However, note that the Article 3, Paragraph 7, and Article 7 of Emergency Law No.5333 came into being in 1954, not during any war. And, as Professor Eckstein notes, it was enforced from that time, which was before any war.

Further, if, as you suggest, it is normal to pass edicts that expel people during war, that sounds like an odd position for someone who claims that something unusual happened to Palestinian Arabs.

Lastly, the removal of the citizenship of Jews was specific. Not all of the edicts were but that one was.

E. Simon -
8/20/2008

Oh wow, Omar. You compare people who actually bother to use facts to debate the relevant issues regarding Israel to wild dogs and/or other animals. How very clever. How brave. How unresponsive and lazy.

N. Friedman -
8/20/2008

Omar,

I think the point you raise is not as strong as you believe. The issue is that there was no substantial Palestinian Arab political movement independent of the Jewish political movement. Rather, the Palestinian Arab political movement was a primarily in reaction and opposition to the Jewish political movement. That is a fact which cuts both ways but it is a fact.

Hence, the label "Palestinian" is not an historical label used by Arabs and, most particularly, not an historical label used by Muslim Arabs.

On the other hand, that label certainly applies today although it is not clear that, absent a dispute with the Israelis, that Palestinian Arabs would continue to apply the same label. That may be the case but it is not a certainty any more than is the case with any other group which identifies itself, early on, by means of its struggle - and, if your comment is accurate about anything, it is accurate when it says that Palestinian Arabs define themselves by their struggle.

On the other hand, Elliott is clearly correct in his history. Whether that history matters at this point - or, more to the point, how that history matters at this point - is another question. It is either that such history suggests that Palestinian Arabs formed a lasting nationality in opposition to Jewish nationalism or that such nationality only has meaning in opposition to Jewish nationalism. It is worth noting that the rise of the Hamas movement suggests that the latter is the case, since the Hamas movement has adopted transnational positions of the type held by other Islamist groups.

Elliott would probably argue that the base historic fact in issue shows that Palestinian Arabs have a lesser claim than Jews. That, to me, is a more difficult case to make. I think that the only claim that can be made is that there are two groups where one or both groups are unable and/or unwilling to find a compromise. The issue of who has the right to be on the land is, frankly, a phony issue since, quite clearly, each side of the dispute came and stayed thereafter on the land according to what was permitted by the ruler of the land. That, frankly, is what happens all over the world.

omar ibrahim baker -
8/20/2008

Mr Friedman and side kick.
Did any of "...., official acts and laws involving sequestration without trial, economic strangulation and confiscation of property, deprivation of citizenship, and outright expulsion. "
1-officially name Jews as the object of those measures?
2-Is it NOT normal for all states at WAR to have such edicts and proclamations ?
3-And apply and enforce them on and to WHO EVER qualifies irrespective?

omar ibrahim baker -
8/20/2008

Elliott is back to the old, abused and totally discarded hypothesis that:
"in 1948 nobody spoke of a "palestinian people," least of all the Palestinian Arabs."(Arab nomads west of the Jordan (#126566) by Elliott Aron Green on August 19, 2008 at 5:59 PM)

Evidently it is useless, not for want of any mental capacity or even of common sense on his part but for want of respect for his readers, to ask him whether it is ever possible, or conceivable, for a people, any time any where, to evolve, or rather, going by his implied logic, to spring spontaneously into existence over night , assume a common identity and name and partake, at great sacrifice, in a common struggle against a common enemy invariably defined and identified by one and all as their common enemy, namely Zionism and its colonialist malignant outgrowth ISRAEL!

His hackneyed and innate reply would be that that people is Arab and/or Syrian and/or belongs to "bilad al Sham" !!!

That, all that, would be literally correct, but definitely NOT in the sense he intends and expounds that it nullifies his Palestinian identity!
Unless of course being a Virginian nullifies being of the South of the USA and of being an, USA, American national!
For that, whether Elliott likes it or not, is the exact parallel and analogy.
Palestine is, geographically, part of Greater Syria which is, culturally/nationalistically, part and parcel of the ARAB nation.

I have no doubt he knows that much .

But his ceaseless attempts to mislead, misinform and deceive, at the service of the colonialist Zionist cause, makes him repeat again and again, banking on the assumed and hopefully presumed by him and ilk, ignorance of the non specialist reader , that hyper absurdity: that no Palestinian people existed/exists.

Unless, once again, if you are a Texan you are NOT an American or if you are a Savoyard you are NOT French etc etc.

The deliberate shameless intellectual dishonesty built in this stand is even more apparent in his, some where above, post where he strongly implied that Greater Syria and The Syrian Republic are one and the same!
I have no doubt that he knows the difference.
However the tragic aspect of this sub issue is his repeated attempt to exploit the fact that the general reader would NOT know or would NOT be able to tell the difference and proceeds there from to exploit his lack knowledge of this particular primarily geographic detail!!
(In a childish vein corresponding to the childish assertion: what would anybody call the people of Frusia except Frusians ? And where would Frusians come from and belong to except Frusia??)

N. Friedman -
8/20/2008

Omar,

Any fair minded person would say that your request for information was answered. The specific materials have been provided so that, if you say that Professor Eckstein is mistaken, you can show that, for example, the proclamation cited does not say what he claims it says. In that it actually does say what it claims, I think you will have a very difficult time.

Again, Omar, there is a case to be made for Palestinian Arabs. However, that does not mean that everything asserted to support Palestinian Arabs is factual. And, it is, notwithstanding your view to the contrary, apparent to anyone who bothers to investigate that the Arab side was not angelic in its treatment of Jews or, frankly, anyone else. And, it is plain as day that the demise of Palestinian Arabs is not unique or unusual.

art eckstein -
8/20/2008

You make general accusations about the "herd"of dogs", Omar. Leaving aside the vicious insult, for which it is useless to ask for an apology-- PROVE THOSE ACCUSATIONS. Provide chapter and verse and evidence. Where EXACTLY are the lies, where are the deceptions?

Omar, it's not lies and deceptions but FACTS that you can't stand. So you just start screaming insults.

Prove those facts wrong, with actual evidence.

art eckstein -
8/20/2008

Omar, you outdo yourself once again

You asked for OFFICIAL acts of the Egyptian government. You have been given them, official acts and laws involving sequestration without trial, economic strangulation and confiscation of property, deprivation of citizenship, and outright expulsion.

The names of the laws and decrees and their dates of passage and proclamation have been given you.
Their devastating impact upon the Jewish population of Egypt, and within a short time, has been shown to you.
This is what happened to Jews at the direction of governments all over the Middle East. The International Red Cross protested. Dag Hammerskold the Secretary General of the UN protested.

Yes, you can continue now to insist that 1 + 1 is 55. But you only continue in that way to shame yourself, and make yourself look like a fool.

omar ibrahim baker -
8/20/2008

Mr Friedman
The request is for:"the "official proclamation that Jews would be expelled."
Not for the "information" at which ....great ingenuity and inventiness but mainly malicious, not unexpectedly, EXTRAPOLATION has been and is being constantly shown.
The request is for the "official proclamation that Jews would be expelled." in which "official" is the key word.

omar ibrahim baker -
8/20/2008

The pack of h....is out in semi full force unveiling their mettle, including the pseudo gentleman and the faux scholar!
They are out hurling insults, accusations, screeching and shouting but mainly:
-Extrapolating, actually fabricating and falsifying to their hearts ' content stands and beliefs and putting words in Omar's mouth NOT only that he did never utter nor contemplate but mainly that had he believed in them he would have never hesitated to put them out in as many words as would be needed; as, I hope ,the record shows!
The syndrome of painting one's enemy, which is the only thing about which we agree, in one's own image and mentality and transporting one's crimes to him is in full exposure here.
AND
-Restricting their reposts to one single fact , among many that make the FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES, where they believe they can fool, deceive and exploit the un knowledge of the general reader....as they have done, quite successfully, for decades and still often do.
(Although I have to agree that the fact that TWO of their publicly elected prime ministers were the perpetrators of massacres and mass evictions plus murder of defenseless civilians is truly unnerving and particularly damaging to their falsely cultivated image and hence the crazed reaction.)

Nothing NEW here for the general western public support of their whole colonialist edifice was built on a mega lie:” A land with no people for a people with no land.”
But the “no people”, who was always there except for the blinded and the racist/ racially self blinded, came back to haunt them and remind them not only of its existence but, more importantly, that the LIE shall not prevail and the crime shall be redressed and ALL rights regained…no matter how long it takes!

E. Simon -
8/20/2008

You don't want peace Mr. Butler so much as you want Israel, on the basis of its relative military and political power, to be recognized as the party more responsible, and perhaps solely responsible, for leaving the conflict unresolved. Perhaps you assume that peace and brotherhood will automatically follow. Please allow me to reject this formulation as one that is overly mathematical.

Had the allies not gone to war with Germany there would have been a peace of sorts - and at least as many victims of genocide as well. Sometimes taking a stand clarifies the very distinction between epistemologies bred of differing cultural backgrounds that you yourself expound upon! I suggest you entertain the notion that some epistemologies (the Palestinian demand to deny Israelis any right to self-determination) are not compatible with others (Israel's rightful refusal to accede to this outcome). If you need less math, more subjectivity and cultural understanding to understand what is inherently more flawed about a certain one of these epistemologies in comparison to the other, then so be it. Or else be honest and admit that your agenda is reflective of a sense of moral relativism or something even more confusing: an insistence that a relative lack of power bestows a moral legitimacy to one's stances that dare not be resisted - regardless of the nature of that stance and the barbaric acts committed in its name.

N. Friedman -
8/20/2008

Mr. Butler,

I see things differently than you. Note your concern for the American Indians being all but eradicated. I share that concern. Please note, though, that nothing like that has happened to Arabs due to any Israelis. That is a fact. People unfortunately get displaced during wars. That, however, is nothing akin to people being eradicated in large numbers, as happened to American Indians,not to mention Jews.

As for what you ask the Israelis to do, consider what is possible in a state with a portion of population under its rule that is not only not loyal but which sides with the country's enemies and which bombs buses, restaurants, religious festivals and rites, etc.. No state on Earth grants unfettered rights to those who are not loyal, much less to those at war with the state. Not one, not now and not ever. The states that would do so would disappear.

Notwithstanding, the Israelis do grant substantial rights to the country's Arab citizens, who serve in the government, who have elected officials and who have judges including a judge on the country's highest court. That is not bad; in fact it is rather extraordinary, given the country's circumstances. So, frankly, I think you have raised another trivial point that comes from reading propaganda, not factual accounts.

james joseph butler -
8/20/2008

Mssrs. Friedman and Simon,
First of all can we please put aside the idea that history is math. I have cited a number of references, which you choose to forget, dismiss or belittle and my knowledge is inferior to the academics that Dr. Cravatts' criticized. Ultimately you and he think it says more about our minds then our sources. I would say precisely the same about you.

Mathematical truths withstand the test of time because they're impervious to human input, history reflects perception which arises in that electro-chemical lab. It has been known to be swayed by its surroundings. I talked about my personal history so I could be more honest about my received history. I think we're all prejudiced Mr. Simon, so I think it's worthwhile to reveal anything pertinent to the subject, two beautiful Palestinian,Irish American nieces, years of thinking America was the greatest as a kid and then finding out otherwise as an adult,Jewish roommates, friends, life in nyc and suburbia. I'm curious to know how long Eliot Green's family has lived in Israel, as well as any personal connections either of you have to Israel apart from your religion. My grandparents were born in Ireland. Gentlemen, can we agree that a large part of our feelings on this issue arise not from texts or treaties but also from living people as well as our political persuasion away from this topic?

I find the unrelenting hostility evinced by the posters on this topic both distasteful and amusing and I know I'm guilty at times. I cited Hillel not to show off but because the chasm between the ideals of religion and so many of it's most fervent believers is sad.

I agree with George Washington that a strict neutrality must be the basis of foreign policy. It's also the right thing to do.

I love to help the underdog and for a lot of Jews given their history, that seems to be in their DNA. Well in America defending Palestinians is defending the underdog.

Mr. Friedman you wrote about the colonial experience in America and in doing so you did something I often do, we all do, you stayed within your purview. That's largely why I intend to stop posting on this subject because it's limiting a wider view of our world. You neglected to talk about a subject I imagine you know reasonably well, the impact of the arrival of Europeans on the New World. Most scholars believe that 90 to 95% of the natives died within the first 150 years from disease alone, from Brazil to Canada. The surviving Indians were enslaved, brutalized, and forced to abandon their cultures. American Indians did not become citizens until 1924 and their struggle to gain full voting rights lasted decades. All that being said there was a Holocaust Museum in place on the Mall in D.C. before an American Indian Museum opened. I ask you which is more part of the land that we walk upon everyday. And which represents traditional power politics as practiced on Capitol Hill? Germany is guilty of crimes that boggle the mind, is the Holocaust part of the American experience? The Polish, Russian pogroms were hideous so were the Hutu.

I'm an American, I want my country to lose the crown of king of arrogance and hypocrisy. I think our one sided support for the Kadima/Likud party is bad for Israelis,Palestinians and Americans. What's best about America is that in our ideals and in many ways our realities no other country treats its citizens as fairly. I know, other countries are far worse than Israel but no other country is the #1 ally and #1 recepient of $$. Is it too much to ask that Israel treat all its citizens equally; pass a Bill of Rights and do what is in it's best interests and seek a peace with Palestine along the lines of the Geneva Accord?

If I prayed, I'd pray that Pres. Obama would remember his days protesting apartheid-even Olmert has used the word-and remember that no justice in South Africa means the same thing in Israel, no peace.

I've read enough books on this subject but if there's a web site or blog you'd recommend and I find it illuminating I would enjoy sharing what I've learned. I would recommend Bernard Chazelle, oddly enough he's a mathematician.

art eckstein -
8/20/2008

I see that Mr. Butler is still--amazingly enough!-- upholding Wikipedia as just as good as actual scholarly books. Yes, Wiki to him is just as good as long and detailed and complex and sophisticated scholarly analyses running hundreds of pages, books published by academic presses after the original manuscripts, written by actual trained historians, have been carefully vetted by other historians who are actual experts in the field.

Well, I'll give you this, Mr. Butler-- Wikipedia is certainly quicker and easier to read than all those BOOKS! In fact, it takes practically no EFFORT at all. Just up your alley, I guess.

Of course, you also can't actually learn much that way, Mr. Butler. But, again, learning something in depth, as opposed to stoking and stroking your prejudices, might actually take detailed study and time-consuming READING.

So you just keep on preferring Wiki, Mr. Butler. Yessir. Because as my wife says, my one vice is my enjoyment of shooting fish in a barrel.

E. Simon -
8/19/2008

Although your disanalogies are sound and insightful. Just think! The injustice of colonial Liberia! No one mentions that when it comes to their use of The Mother of All Pejoratives.

E. Simon -
8/19/2008

You don't understand, Mr. Friedman. There is a script that needs to play out. Yasir Arafat is a modern-day George Washington. Rachel Corrie is like one of the fallen from the Boston Massacre. (Although funny what John Adams would have made of that). The Government of Israel is The Vatican. Zionists are papists. Books like this can't teach one anything about the philo-semitic roots of the American founding - even though it wasn't written by an early 20th century British apologist for colonialism.

You see, we don't need to look to any of the real facts or study the narratives on their merits. They are getting in the way of Mr. Butler's need to trot out the personal baggage that exists in his own cultural memories and historical identity. And that's what's most important here - at least to Mr. Butler. Jews (and possibly Arabs) need to butt out of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Everything they need to learn about the matter may be lectured to them by those who are granted a superior vantage point by virtue of their anti-McCarthyist and questioning Catholic credentials alone.

Elliott Aron Green -
8/19/2008

Art E, et al.
I think that there are some problems with Fischbach's claims, not just with Omar. I think that Fischbach's claims are likely to be more influential than Omar's.

Elliott Aron Green -
8/19/2008

It seems that Fischbach is taking a tendentious approach to this issue, refusing to take any claims by these Jewish groups at face value. He even refuses to call them "refugees," putting the term in quote marks as if to cast doubt on the term's applicability here. His tone seems to verge toward that of n finkelstein in re the Holocaust. Anyhow, he is of course entitled to his opinion. But some of Fishbach's claims are simply wrong or very dubious.

1) that "some [left] without their property." I believe that it would be more correct to say that the overwhelming majority left without their property. Although some possessed major assets and property in Arab lands and were able at an early stage to transfer assets abroad, most could not realize monetarily what they could not carry. Real estate and much movable property was simply abandoned or confiscated before departure. Bat Ye'or, probably not one of Fishbach's sources, writes that Jews could take only what they could carry and even that was often despoiled by Egyptian customs officers. I believe that Michael Laskier [or Lasker?] wrote some more authoritative articles on Jewish refugees from Egypt and Morocco.

2) The book Forgotten Millions, ed. by Malka Hillel Shulewitz contains an article documenting Arab League plans to drive out Jews and confiscate their property in case of UN General Assembly recommendation for Partition [11-29-1947]. Bear in mind the threats made by Egyptian and Iraq delegates to the UN if the General Assembly recommended partition.

Jews had lived in Arab-ruled lands in a state of legal inferiority for more than 1000 years. This state, shared with Christians and others, was called dhimma. Jews, like other dhimmis, had undergone massacres, economic exploitation, oppression, humiliation varying in intensity with time and place throughout the period since the Arab conquests. To say that the Jews were not refugees, or to cast doubt on this, is not quite Holocaust denial, but it is denial of reality.

3) "Israeli officials admitted that what figures they were able to document were dwarfed by Palestinian compensation claims."
Now, Fishbach admits that there were more Jewish refugees from Arab lands than Palestinian Arab refugees, 800,000 vs 750,000. By the way, I think that he underestimates the number of Jews who left Arab-ruled lands and exaggerates the number of
Arabs who left Israel. Be that as it may, the larger group should be expected to have had more property. Further, some of the Jews in Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Algeria, etc. were quite wealthy, probably outnumbering the wealthy Palestinian Arabs. So just where Fischbach gets off claiming the Palestinian Arab claims "dwarf" Jewish claims I don't know. Who were these unnamed "Israeli officials" who support his dubious claim??? On the other hand, maybe the Arabs were grossly inflating their pre-1948 assets and merely claiming much more than the Jews did. But Fischbach seems not to consider this.

4) in 1948 nobody spoke of a "palestinian people," least of all the Palestinian Arabs. Consider the testimony of Arab representatives and spokesmen before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in 1946. They saw themselves as part of Syria, bilad ash-Sham in Arabic. So Fischbach is being anachronistic in using a term that the people concerned rejected at the time. They were pan-Arabists and accepted the leadership of Arab states and the League.

5) calls for pressing compensation claims against Arab states for property confiscated when Jews left those states were made many years ago. So the idea is not at all new. Why the Israeli govt never pushed such claims until recently may be for other reasons, such as the increase in influence in Israel of the Jews from Arab lands. Fischbach mentions the WOJAC. This body was calling for such claims to be made back in the 1960s, I believe. Maybe Fischbach should call back his book and do more research using Laskier's sources.

N. Friedman -
8/19/2008

Mr. Butler,

I have not called you anything that calls your reputation as a human being into question. Maybe someone, somewhere - but not I - did but, evidently, you are unable to provide any evidence for it.

What is wrong with being a colony? In the US, we celebrate the fact that we were a colony. The Mexicans do not seem to mind having been a colony. Neither do the Canadians. Neither do the Brazilians. Neither do the Arabs outside of Arabia. What is wrong, if Israel is or was a colony - or, to use your phrase, "neo-colonial entity" -, with Israel being or having been just that?

Factually, of course, what you write could not be further from the truth. The British, of course, were colonialists and Jews attempted to coop the British to help a Jewish cause, namely, the creation of a Jewish homeland. But, that does not make the Jews into colonialists.

Jews, in fact, were migrants (Have you not heard the phrase, so commonly used to describe Europe's Jews, "wandering Jew"?), hoping to make a life - something which, Mr. Butler, you attempt, rather unsuccessfully, to belittle with your label "neo-colonial entity" -, just like you. In fact, it was Jews who drove the actual colonialists, the British, out. How does that anti-colonial act square with your assertion? Of course, it does not. Of course, such fact shows that the Jews had a different agenda, one of their own - hence, one that, by definition, cannot be colonial.

Moreover, you would say that it is a country "created almost entirely by Europeans by events in Europe." One might ask, assuming, arguendo, that your point were well taken, which it is not: How does that matter?

Again, though, the Europeans of that time did not consider Jews to be European. The common trope was that Jews are Orientals. Pick up and book on that period and you will see that I am correct. Moreover, Israel would not have survived the year of its creation had the Arab states not made their Jewish populations flee.

Now, if you do not want people to call you Antisemitic - a point which seems to rile you so that, please understand, I am merely explaining something to you, not labeling you something vile -, do not reach into the Talmud to show your bona fides. That, after all, is a typical stunt employed by an Antisemitic souls.

Once more, I ask you to answer my early questions. What is wrong, morally or otherwise, for Jews from the Arab regions and/or Europe (neither region having ever - as in it never occurred -, as of the time of Israel's creation, treated Jews as equals and both regions, at times, having severely persecuted and oppressed Jews) attempting to solve their problem - a problem the world ignored - by creating their own land, just as former American slaves who created Liberia? And, since it is certainly arguable that solving their problem might inevitably create a problem for others, why should that bother us any more than what "Greeks" (from what is now Greece and also, in large numbers, from a diaspora in Europe) did to sever a brand new country, Greece - a country that had never existed in the history of the world -, from the Ottoman Empire, expelling millions of Muslims and, at the same time, bringing in millions of Christians (i.e. now called Greeks) from both Europe and the Ottoman Turkey? In fact, Israel's creation is a trivial affair compared to the creation of Greece. Yet, you do not call the creation of Greece a colonial or neo-colonial endeavor - when, by your definition, it certainly is.

Please do not respond by using the buzz words like colonial or neo-colonial. To paraphrase Nietzsche, words used as labels are a substitute for thinking. In other words, let me know what is wrong and not your command of words that have no meaning except to initiates in your world of politics.

james joseph butler -
8/19/2008

Ho hum, Mr. Friedman, I have been labeled an anti-semite on these pages, I can't rememeber his name, but I googled him when it happened and found out he was a history professor at the University of Maryland, that's a good school.

Like I've said before I can laugh at the professor and you because for all your intellectual appurtenances; texts from the 1920's written by colonial Brits superior to Wikipedia even though I find the same quotes on Jewish sites,the JVL being just one, the idea that the word "Oxford" connotes some quasi-sacred verity upon it's user, you and the other hard line pro-Israel posters are bullies. You seem to think that by citing your group's collective mindset and saying that my posts reveal a gift for the trivial and non-factual I'm going to be deterred from stating a simple inescapable truth; the modern state of Israel(I've said this from the time I first posted, it ain't going away)is a neo-colonial entity created almost entirely by Europeans by events in Europe. If any Talmudic message is relevant it's the one Hillel stated when asked to stand on one foot and reveal its myriad truths; the Golden Rule. I was raised Catholic and if I thought the Vatican's history represented me. Exile would be my only choice.

N. Friedman -
8/19/2008

Mr. Butler,

No one here has accused you, so far as I know, of antisemitism. What has been noted is that you fail to show the remotest bit of sympathy for Jews, which is a different thing.

Moreover, people have studied the dispute in some detail find your citation to quotes - without providing the slightest bit of context - rather trivial. Moreover, you have shown no knowledge of the facts and seem to make judgments based on broad stroke assertions - the information for which appears to come from propaganda, not historical facts.

My suggestion is that you read a variety of books about the dispute, by people who hold different viewpoints. That may sound patronizing but, frankly, quoting sources without knowing the context of a quote - and taking those quotes from Wikiquote to boot - amounts to being a propagandist, not someone interested in historical events.

As for Omar, he appears to be a Hezb'Allah supporter. That party is, whether one is pro-Arab, pro-Muslim or not, an offensive, Antisemitic party which publicly espouses genocide. Such places it far to the right of the Kach party, which the Israelis once labeled a racist party.

As for the accusation that pro-Arab views are not heard in the US or are otherwise silenced in the US, that is nonsense. Open up The New York Times. Yesterday will do. The paper's editorial yesterday took the pro-Arab side. Note: The New York Times is the leading newspaper in the US.

After criticizing the Israelis, the paper, most oddly, fantasizes that "A way must be found to help turn Hamas into a legitimate and acceptable negotiating partner." One might ask how a group which makes Israel's destruction into the will of Allah will be turned into something that would violate its view of its religion? That is a fantasy to anyone the least bit familiar with Hamas. Just ask our Omar, who will set you straight on this point. The Hamas will not change but will remain committed to Jihad struggle to destroy Israel.

In fact, on any given day, the papers are filled with articles that take the pro-Arab side of the dispute or otherwise fantasize Arab flexibility that has no basis at all in fact. Would you like me to post the URL's for such articles from a variety of recent editions of US papers?

That Rachel Corrie did not make it as a play in New York - although it was shown elsewhere in the US - is not an argument. It is propaganda.

james joseph butler -
8/19/2008

The hamster wheel goes round and round whether it be on this page or sadly in the actual negotiations in the Middle East. Truth and reconciliation remain chimerical.

After reading more than a few posts here it seems as if no one is responding to Prof. Fishbach's point; the losses of Sephardic Jewish refugees/immigrants in the Middle East who left willingly or otherwise is being subsumed by the American/Israeli community's desire to equate the Sephardim's losses to those suffered by Palestinian refugees to thwart Palestinian reparation and return.

I may be the only person on this page who does not have Semitic ancestors. You all have much in common. I've known Jews since I can remember, I've lived with them. One of my sisters married a Palestinian American. I was sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians before I met Muhamed. The Palestinian Americans I know are like the Jewish Americans I know, they don't care what ethnicity you are. Yet on this page and so many other posts on HNN the same story over and over.

There's a reason blacks and Jews in this country share a devotion to civil rights. Those Jewish refugees in the Middle East doubtless had to flee in many or most instances. I need to read Fishbach's book or maybe read some more Wikipedia or the Jewish Virtual Library to learn more.

The dynamic on this page reflects the larger picture in America regarding the status of Palestinians. The New York press gives rave notices to a Golda Meir Broadway bio, while an off Broadway Rachel Corrie drama is cancelled due to pressure. Tom Shales in the Wash Post reviewed a Helen Thomas documentary on HBO yesterday, his chief criticism, the film makers concealed her anti-Israel bias. She had the temerity to suggest that McCain/Obama were pro-Israel. To criticize Israel in America is to be un-American. This is McCarthyism. Omar according to the posts on this page is a racist,masochist,ignorant,fool. Much the same has been said of me. The license to engage in this kind of one sided; you must either be evil or a fool to be anti-Israel, is osmotic.

Until the American press recognizes the sins of Israel, which obviously the press in Israel is free to do, America can't be a change agent for Israel-Palestine. Of course our press is pro-American in all foreign affairs it's just that we now have to have two foreign policies, "to make us more secure and make Israel secure,"-Joe Biden. That tilt a world perspective plus a blanket pro-Israeli press hurts us all and it encourages the simplistic, however couched in learned argot,defensiveness evident here.

What I learned on summer vacation, while posting,researching. Damn, here I am trying to meet half way but my opinion after learning more: San Remo,Rothschilds,al-Husseini,Zionist letters-documents etc., leaves me much where I began. When the Jews jumped out of the burning building they landed on the Palestinians' necks. The Sephardic refugees were just one of the countless ramifications that continue to grow from the creation of Israel and until the essential injustice of imposing a colony whose chief catalysts were events which occurred thousands of miles away(hello America)on innocent people is addressed, with the understanding that Israel is a fact, peace, which would serve everyone, can't happen.

N. Friedman -
8/19/2008

Omar,

Professor Eckstein has provided the requested information. It is entirely accurate.

art eckstein -
8/19/2008

Omar asks for evidence and specifics of official measures that led to the expuslion of Jews from Egypt.

Official Measures that lead to the expulsion of Jews from Egypt, dealing (merely) with the period 1956-1957:

According to official Egyptian documents, four specific kinds of measure directly and radically affected the rights, status and very existence of many Jews in Egypt. These were: police detention; sequestration of businesses and property; explusion from the country; and promulgation of a new statute under which Jews were deprived of citizenship.

Regarding the first category, Article 3, Paragraph 7, and Article 7 of Emergency Law No.5333 of 1954, on the Proclamation of a State of Siege in Egypt, authorized the Military Government of Egypt 'to order the arrest and apprehension of suspects and those who prejudice public order and security'. Under these provisions, hundreds of Jews, without charges against them, were detained, imprisoned or otherwise deprived of their liberty.

According to representatives in Egypt of an important international relief organization, at least 900 Jews had been arrested as of 7 December 1956. Five hundred were interned in the Jewish school at Abbasiyya in Cairo. As of 3 December, 261 of these 500 were stateless; the rest were Egyptian citizens. At the Abraham Batesh Jewish school in Heliopolis, another 42 Jews were detained, most of them women, many of them aged. This group included 19 stateless persons and 23 others. At Les Barrages prison north of Cairo, 300 Jews were detained, half of them stateless; the other half British and French subjects. Limited to the Cairo area, and excluding Alexandria and the smaller, dwindling communities of the Nile Delta, these figures cannot represent the total number of Jews then imprisoned in Egypt.

Furthermore, many Jewish families in Cairo and Alexandria were held in confinement at their homes for considerable lengths of time, often without funds, food or other supplies, under surveillance by building concierges invested with police authority to control Jewish tenants under confinement, and supplied with firearms to render this control more effective.

Sequestration and economic strangulation: under the authority of Military Proclamation No.4 'relative to commerce with British and French subjects and to measures affecting their properties' (Journal Officiel, No.88, bis A of 1 November 1956), 19 directives appeared in the Journal Officiel of Egypt. Eleven (Nos.170-177 and 186-188) overwhelmingly affected the property of Jews. Military Proclamation No.4 appeared under the heading of 'Regime of Sequestration'. It stated in Article 1 that:

The commissioner of the management of properties of persons interned or placed under surveillance, charged with the execution of the provisions of Law No. 176 of 1956, will assume the management of the properties of the following persons and institutions: 1) all persons who were interned or placed under surveillance in execution of the law relative to the state of siege; 2) every company, association or foundation, whatever its purpose may be, functioning under the control of any single person cited above, or any person having an important interest in it; 3) all persons who reside outside the Republic of Egypt and function under the control of any of the aforementioned persons or those who have an important interest in them.

About 95 per cent of the people who suffered from this government measure were Jews. It is noteworthy that these directives issued under Military Proclamation No.4 did not refer to properties owned by British and French subjects which were sequestered under Military Proclamation No.5 - also affecting a number of Jews - but exclusively refer to assets of Egyptian citizens, stateless Jews, and Jews of nationalities other than British and French. All in all, it is estimated that between November 1956 and March 1957 assets of at least 500 Jewish-owned firms were sequestered and their bank accounts frozen; 800 more enterprises under Jewish proprietorship were placed on an economic blacklist and their assets frozen.(11)

The persons and firms affected by this measure represented the bulk of the economic substance of Egyptian Jewry, the largest and most important enterprises, and the main sustenance, through voluntary contributions, of the Jewish religious, educational, social and welfare institutions in Egypt. The resulting paralysis of these institutions substantially aggravated the uprooting effect of the government's anti-Jewish policies and greatly intensified the pressure for Jews to leave the country.

In addition to depriving owners of their properties and income, the sequestration measures indirectly affected the livelihood of a much broader circle of Jews, those employed by firms placed under custodianship. It was reliably reported that all sequestered firms received instructions to discharge all employees of the Jewish faith and acted accordingly. Nor was the elimination of Jews from Egyptian economic life confined to sequestered firms and assets. There were other measures, mostly unofficial, which prevented a large, additional group of Jews from earning a living. For example, most Jews had already lost their positions in public companies and many private firms which were not subject to sequestration. At the same time, many Jews in independent private enterprises were prevented from doing business by the denial of trade permits, export and import licenses, foreign currency allocations, and other administrative facilities essential to the continuation of business. As a result, Jews were either forcibly excluded or voluntarily withdrawing from business. Likewise, a steadily growing number of Jewish physicians, lawyers and engineers were, by various means, prevented from practising their professions.(12)

The character and intent of the sequestration policy was rather clearly revealed by one of its original provisions. Sequestration order No. 189 authorized the commissioner of sequestered properties to deduct from all capital assets under his custody, ten per cent of their value, as well as ten per cent of the current income of income-producing properties, to be used for administrative and other undefined purposes. This provision transformed the measure into an instrument for at least partial confiscation of these assets, pointing, at the same time, towards the strong probability that this policy aimed at something more drastic and final than mere custody.

Expulsion and "voluntary" empigration as Egyptian governmental polciies were not entirely distinct. By the end of November 1956 at least 500 Egyptian and "stateless" Jews had been expelled from Egypt, not including a considerable number of Jewish citizens of Britain and France. Most of the expellees were heads of families. They were ordered to leave the country within two to seven days.

In most cases, the individual served with a deportation order was a breadwinner responsible for supporting his family; but all members of the family had to leave the country. Thus, this measure indirectly forced out of Egypt several times the number of those who received expulsion orders. However, official deportation orders were by no means the most effective instruments for thorough forced emigration.

At the end of November 1956, direct, individual expulsion orders ceased, only to be replaced by the more subtle, potent techniques of intimidation and psychological warfare against the Jewish population as a whole. Under these pressures and the simultaneous economic harassment of Jews, a much larger and steadily growing emigration movement began. Jews 'voluntarily' obliged themselves, in formal declarations to the authorities, to leave the country and, in the case of Egyptian nationals, to relinquish their citizenship.(13)

Both the formal expulsion orders and the 'voluntary' pledges to expatriate oneself struck Jews of every status - citizens, stateless persons, and foreign subjects alike. All laissez-passer documents issued to them expressly stated that the person leaving Egypt would not be permitted to return, and that they voluntarily renounced all claims against Egypt. More than 20,200 Jews emigrated between 22 November 1956 and 30 June 1957. In all, between 23,000 and 25,000 out of the 45,000 Jews left Egypt: that is, more than 50% of all Egyptian Jews left in one seven month period.

The emigration, expulsion and flight began on a large scale with thousands of people flocking to the offices of the Rabbinate, consulates, and embassies seeking advice, assistance and means of escape. The port of Alexandria and the airfield at Cairo were jammed with refugees leaving the country. Initially, government officials showed little leniency in customs inspections, arbitrarily confiscating any items which were believed to be of value. The pressure at points of embarkation was so great that there was no time for individual treatment. In the bedlam of this situation, thousands of people left with hardly more than the clothes on their backs.

The American Embassy was seriously disturbed by the situation. On several occasions it made representations about it to the Egyptian government, warning of the negative impact that measures against the Jews might have on world public opinion. The American representations had no impact.

Perhaps more important was the intercession on behalf of the Jewish community by UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskold. Many members of the Jewish community felt that his intercession, brought about through informal advances by the Jewish community to neutral embassies, considerably lightened the Egyptian governmental measures.

Denaturalization (deprivation of citizenship) also affected Egyptian Jews. A long-standing device to achieve 'national homogeneity' had been the Egyptian nationality law of 13 September 1950. On 22 November 1956 this law was amended by a decree-law promulgated by the President of the Republic (i.e. Nasser). Article 1 proclaimed that:

Only individuals resident on Egyptian territory before 1 January 1900, who maintained their residence until the date of promulgation of the present decree and who are not under the jurisdiction of a foreign state, are Egyptians.

The legally incapacitating intent and effect of this provision are quite clear in spite of the camouflaging formulation.

First, the law could easily be interpreted to mean that if an 'undesirable' individual left the country, even for a brief stay abroad, he thereby automatically failed to 'maintain his residence' until the date of the new law. Through this device, Egyptian citizens of the Jewish faith were easily deprived retroactively of their acquired citizenship.

Second, an even more dangerous loophole was hidden behind the stipulation of the cut-offdate of 1 January 1900. There was simply no officially valid documentation in existence which could attest to the residence of persons in Egypt at that remote point in time. Through this loophole, not only were new certificates of nationality denied to undesired applicants, but it was now possible for the authorities to annul existing certificates retroactively.

But the 1956 Law did not stop at these stipulations. It went on to impose special disabilities expressly upon Jews alone. Article 1 further stipulated that:

Neither Zionists nor those against whom a judgement has been handed down for crimes of disloyalty to the country or for treason, shall be covered by this provision.

To make the intent of this provision clear beyond doubt, Article 1 added that:

No request for the delivery of a certificate of Egyptian nationality will be accepted from persons known as Zionists . . .

This was the first instance in the history of law where the concept of Zionism was applied in a nationality statute as a criterion of citizenship and as an indirect basis for denaturalization. Since the law furnished no definition whatsoever of the term 'Zionist', it was obvious that the Egyptian authorities could apply this provision at will to any person of the Jewish faith.

omar ibrahim baker -
8/19/2008

N. Friedman -
8/19/2008

In Egypt, there was an official proclamation that Jews would be expelled. That sounds pretty systematic to me.

art eckstein -
8/19/2008

Dear E. Simon,

Omar takes as "natural" a ferocious desire of all humans to return to their "homeland". This is to naturalize the degeneration of Palestinian Arab culture into a Nazi-like death-cult.

12 million Germans were forced out or fled Eastern Europe in 1945, and 1 million of them died, and half-a-million of them were raped; that is a tragedy EIGHTEEN TIMES the size of the Naqba, and inconceivably larger in terms of deaths. These Germans are not, by law, permitted to return to, e.g., Poland, the Czech Republic or Romania.

Yet: (a) there is no international furore over this, and (b) these Germans and their descendants are not blowing up schoolchildren in Danzig, Prague, or Bucharest.

7 million Hindus were forced out or fled Pakistan in 1947; again, 1 million of them died. This is TWELVE TIMES the size of the Naqba, and the number of dead is inconceivably larger. Yet we don't see these Hindus or their descendants blowing up supermarkets filled with peaceful shoppers in Karachi.

The same can be said about the 850,000 Jews who fled or were expelled from Arab lands in 1948-1960 (100,000 MORE VICTIMS than the Naqba), or the 300,000 Greeks who fled or were expelled from Egypt in the mid-1950s (a classic case of GOVERNMENT-MANDATED ethnic and religious cleansing), or the 50,000 Greeks who fled or were expelled from northern Turkey in the same period (DITTO), or the 600,000 Christian Lebanese who have fled Lebanon since 1989 (60,000 since 2006).

There is nothing "natural" about the Palestinian Arab Nazi-like death-culture. Rather, it is--as Omar has PROUDLY stated in other, different contexts here at HNN--a voluntary cultural CHOICE: other peoples, Omar says, are simply not as "noble" as the Palestinians.

Indeed, in a previous blog it was well-established that there was always significant in-migration of Palestinian Arabs from place to place within the borders of the Mandate, so that by 1931 about 12% of the Arab population of the sub-districts that became israel had migrated to those sub-districts in the past ten years.

So, once more, we can't let Omar get away here with the "natural" argument. And it helps to point how how he contradicts himself, since elsewhere he proudly proclaims the Nazi-like death-cult that is now Palestinian culture as (not natural but) a voluntary cultural CHOICE.

E. Simon -
8/19/2008

In the likely event that he considers Israel a "homeland" for Palestinian Christians or Fatah members, we should ask Omar if he thinks Hamas is justified in persecuting these people so as to facilitate their migration to the Jewish State. We should ask what he also thinks that Hamas/Fatah should be thanked for facilitating the migration of gay Palestinians to Israel by persecuting them as well - even if they will likely not contribute as much to the "Arab womb as a demographic weapon against Israel" trope.

E. Simon -
8/19/2008

Thanks Art, as always, for more facts.

This fact I found especially interesting:

"The nightmare in Gaza is so oppressive that Fatah-members are fleeing to Israel! The Christian population is fleeing as well."

I wasn't aware that there were many Christians in Gaza. But no matter. That's a minor quibble and obviated, in any event, by the well-documented fact that they've fled the West Bank under the "stewardship" of the PLO.

What is interesting is to compare the observations to the following statement by Omar:

"Whether "the place of refuge" is better or worse is not for you to decide NOR it is THE ISSUE.
The crux of the matter is the only too natural human desire of people to return to their homelands ."

Apparently he is unbothered by what Fatah and Palestinian Christians have decided on the matter. Nor does he think that, for them, could it be "THE ISSUE" getting in the way of the "crux of the matter". Whatever.

art eckstein -
8/19/2008

I'm not a historian of Islamic affairs. That's not my promary vocation. I just strive to inject facts and honesty into this blog, even if it means eternal battle with Omar.

If, long ago, Omar was unclear about what he meant by a shura state, and evasive about whether he wished to impose sharia law everywhere in that state when he was directly questioned on that topic, and if he also stated he favored a universal Caliphate ("I'm in favor of al-Qaeda's goals, though not always their means")--well, it's not fault of mine if I interpreted this to mean he was in favor of the imposition of a religious-totalitarian state.

Indeed, I'm not sure that an alleged shura-council would modify that view of mine--ultimately, Omar favors a religious-totalitarian state--more than slightly.

After all, he fervently supports Hamas. (Sure, Hamas was elected; so was Hitler.) The nightmare in Gaza is so oppressive that Fatah-members are fleeing to Israel! The Christian population is fleeing as well.

omar ibrahim baker -
8/19/2008

"I suspect that deep inside Omar is a masochist. No one could absorb the continual severe humiliations he has had to suffer as his ignorance is exposed at the hands of people who actually *know* something, and keep coming back, unless he is a masochist."(Re: Fundamental Differences (#126541)
by art eckstein on August 18, 2008 at 10:48 PM)

Thus spake the multi awarded Professor who having failed in his primary vocation as a historian and a specialist in Islamic affairs ( he does NOT know the difference between "shura" and "shariaa") is turning now towards psychoanalysis hoping to have a new career!
However judging by his first (?) attempt at that he seems to be doomed to the same failure!
Only the fact that he is in charge of "educating" students makes him note worthy ....otherwise he is totally unworthy of any note!

omar ibrahim baker -
8/19/2008

HOWEVER
None of the incidents you describe, both real and made up, was part of a "systemic cleansing campaign (of Jews from Arab countries)" undertaken by an official Arab organ , such as those perpetrated by the Jewish Haganah, Stern and others which later became the back bone of the Israeli army, as were, inter alia, Deir Yassin and the eviction of Lod (Lydda) , led by future prime minister Yitzhak Rabin if memory does NOT fail me.
Or as for Qibbya undertaken directly by the Israeli army under the command of Sharon, of Sabra and Shatilla fame, who later become, in full public appreciation of his, and Rabin’s, valor at the massacres of civilians, prime ministers of Israel!

art eckstein -
8/19/2008

Omar has stated his position long ago: Jews who fled or were expelled from Arab lands did so voluntarily, to become voluntary "colons" over the Palestinians, and there was no confiscation of Jewish property in Arab lands, none.

We can present the terrible facts, so that other readers can know them, and this we must do.

But as for Omar, he remains what he is, in his
invincible ignorance and malice. But he is so ignorant, and so malicious, that he is an easy target.

I suspect that deep inside Omar is a masochist. No one could absorb the continual severe humiliations he has had to suffer as his ignorance is exposed at the hands of people who actually *know* something, and keep coming back, unless he is a masochist.

We have the facts; he doesn't; we have a sophisticated and balanced historical analysis; all he has is spewed-forth hatred; therefore, he always loses. So be it.

Of course, Jews weren't the only victims of Middle Eastern ethnic and religious cleansing in the 1950s--real cleansing, by government fiat. This also happened after 1956 to 300,000 Greeks in Egypt, and another 75,000 or so Greeks in northern Turkey. Nobody is upset about this now. They don't have the PR of the Palestinians, it wasn't Jews who did it to them, and they do not engage in savage terrorism against civilians, so nobody--especially on the Left--cares that these terrible things happened.

E. Simon -
8/18/2008

Untrue?

So no Arab immigrating to America or Europe did so to flee massacres or fears of similar persecutions? I find that to be a remarkable assertion. Perhaps you have evidence to back it up. Then again, perhaps you don't.

Hey, it's not for me to decide if someone should prefer to live in squalor or not. But it's not for you to reject the evidence that says they generally don't, either. And if you want to go the extra step and justify the policies that the PLO used to keep the Palestinians in squalor for political purposes, then feel free to do so. As it stands, even if you don't want to do that outright, it's hard to conclude anything else.

N. Friedman -
8/18/2008

Again, Omar, what you write is untrue!!!

N. Friedman -
8/18/2008

Omar,

There was no plan to rid Israel of Arabs. Otherwise, they would all be long gone.

There was a plan - not directed at ethnic cleansing but, rather, at moving people out of the way during the fighting in order, a, to limit the numbers of civilians killed and, b, to cripple the effort by Arabs to cleanse the region of Jews.

You say there was no effort at ethnic cleansing. Recall that on May 15, 1948, Azzam Pasha, the Secretary-General of the Arab League declared that "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and the Crusades."

That sounds like a call for genocide, not to mention ethnic cleansing.

As for suggesting that my facts are not true, that is a lie.

omar ibrahim baker -
8/18/2008

Simon
Whether "the place of refuge" is better or worse is not for you to decide NOR it is THE ISSUE.
The crux of the matter is the only too natural human desire of people to return to their homelands .

Your attempt at a Europe/America analogy is misleading, deceptive and irrelevant for none of the Arabs you allude too were subjected to mass massacres of civilians,eg Deir Yassin, nor forcedly evicted,eg Lod; to name but a few cases.

omar ibrahim baker -
8/18/2008

Mr Friedman
Arab/Jewish inter communal relations were severely strained with the unveiling of Zionist colonialist designs on Palestine and incidents DID occur with casualties in both communities.
HOWEVER
None of the incidents you describe, both real and made up, was part of a "systemic cleansing campaign (of Jews from Arab countries)" undertaken by an official Arab organ , such as those perpetrated by the Jewish Haganah, Stern and others which later became the back bone of the Israeli army, as were, inter alia, Deir Yassin and the eviction of Lod (Lydda) , led by future prime minister Yitzhak .Rabin if memory does NOT fail me
Or as for Qibbya undertaken directly by the Israeli army under the command of Sharon, of Sabra and Shatilla fame, who later become, in full public appreciation of his, and Rabin’s, valor at the massacres of civilians, prime ministers of Israel!

EVEN you should be able to see the difference!

Many of the so called "pogroms" you allude to, particularly in Iraq, I was/am told by an Iraqi old timer, were incited and paid for by Zionist circles to induce, actually coerce, Jews to emigrate into the then abuilding Zionist colony in Palestine and were implemented by "hoodlums" paid for by resident agents of the Jewish agency .
It is an undeniable historical fact, revealed and confirmed by the LAVON affair in Egypt, that the Jewish leadership at the time made all sorts of moves to exacerbate the relations between indigenous Jews living in Arab countries and the Arab masses.

I note with pleasure that you have restricted your repost to the issue of "massacres" and totally neglected all other facts which determine and define the issue.
I construe that as tacit confirmation of all the other points I made.

(An aside: It is NOT, certainly, for you, or any body like you, to tell me what is and what is NOT "becoming".
For me to heed such a remark it has to come from a source of verifiable objectivity and patent non bias...to say the least
You certainly DO NOT qualify.)

E. Simon -
8/18/2008

Right Omar. Arab immigrants to Europe and America are so firmly attached to the countries they came from. That's why they just can't wait to get back.

The fact is that immigrants/refugees only long to "get back" to places they came from when the place of refuge is even worse. Hence, the policies maintained by every Palestinian leadership since 1948 and Egyptian and Jordanian leaders before 1967: Keep the Palestinians in horrible, camp conditions in order to stoke resentments that the leadership easily bypassed with the millions they took for themselves - billions in Arafat's case.

N. Friedman -
8/18/2008

Omar,

Reading what you write, I have say that you will says anything, including things you surely know are not true.

You say there were no massacres of Jews in Arab countries in and around the relevant time period. That, Sir, is simply untrue. Moreover, Sir, that massacres occurred has been brought to your attention on more than one occasion.

Let us start with 1929, at which point there was a massacre of Jews in Hebron - and, by the way, what you would call people indigenous to Hebron -. 67 were killed and those who lived there were forced to move.

In 1947, there were pogroms in Syria. As a result, shops and synagogues in Aleppo were destroyed. Thousands of Jews fled Syria.

In Egypt in 1945, there was a rise in anti-Jewish sentiment so that riots erupted. As a result, 10 Jews were killed. In addition 350 Jews were injured and there was property damages including the destruction of a synogogue.

In the Summer of 1947, the amendment to the Egyptian Companies Law resulted in the loss of livelihood for large numbers of Jews.

Between June and November 1948, there were bombs exploided in the Jewish Quarter. Seventy Jews were killed and 200 were wounded. In addition, thousands of Jews were arrested and the property of many people was confiscated. There were also riots that occurred, during which many Jews were killed.

In 1956, Egypt expelled 25,000 Jews and confiscated their property. Jews were officially made, as the result of a proclamation by the Egyptian Minister of Religious Affairs, "enemies of the state.“ The proclamation indicated that Jews would be expelled from the country. As a result, thousands of Jews were expelled from Egypt, allowed to take only one suitcase and a small sum of cash. Such people were, in connection with their expulsion, required to sign a declaration “donating“ their property to the Egyptian government.

There was subsequent persecution of Jews in the country. Must I describe it to you?

In Iraq, there were, of course, pogroms against Jews which resulted in 180 Jews were massacred. There was subsequent persecution.

In Morocco during June of 1948, there were riots in Oujda and Djerada in which 44 Jews killed. Many other Jewish people were wounded.

In Yemen during 1947, Muslim rioted after the UN Partition vote and, evidently, the local police force participated in the riots. In Aden the pogrom killed 82 Jews. Hundreds of Jewish homes were destroyed. Most of the Jewish stores and businesses were destroyed. In 1948m 50,000 Jews were forced out of Yemen.

In Tunisia, the rabbinical tribunal was abolished by the government in 1957. Thereafter (about a year later), Jewish community councils were required to be dissolved. The Jewish quarter of Tunis was also destroyed by the government. There were riots against Jews after the Six Day War began. The Great Synagogue of Tunis was burned down.

In Libya,there was a pogrom in Tripoli on November 5, 1945. In excess of 140 Jewish people were massacred. In addition, nearly all of the synagogues in Tripoli were looted. In June of 1948, there were riots. 12 Jews were killed and 280 Jewish homes were ruined. In 1949, in excess of 30,000 Jews fled Libya.

Following the Six-Day War, there were pogroms. 18 Jewish people were killed, and many were injured, resulting in Jews fleeing the country.

In Algeria in 1934, there was a pogrom in Constantine that resulted in 25 Jews being killed and many other injured.

After obtaining independence in 1962, the Algerian government persecuted the country's Jews, taking away their economic rights so that 150,000 Jews were forced to leave Algeria.

Again, Omar, when you make things up - in this case, after having been told of such facts -. you continue to spew falsehoods. That is not becoming.

Please note that most of the rest of your facts are made up as well. Must I address all of them.

And, lastly, Omar. There is a case to be made for the Arab position. You, however, have not made it. And, frankly, Omar, making stuff up is unbecoming.

omar ibrahim baker -
8/18/2008

Despite the author’s attempt to create, not enthusiastically, a parallelism between the issue of Palestinian refugees and those indigenous Jews who chose to leave their, supposedly, Arab “homelands” during and post 1948, which era witnessed a marked deterioration of Arab/Jewish relations, some fundamental differences that define both issues DO Exist between the two issues that must be recognized .

First and Foremost is the historically unchallengeable fact that whereas:
-Palestinian refugees were driven out through a systemic Zionist/Jewish campaign of ethnic cleansing that included, inter alia, mass massacres of civilians (Deir Yassin)
-and forced eviction (Lod)
and,, for some,
-a desire to distance themselves from theatres of military operations in or very near to their actual dwellings during the war
Jewish departees :
-voluntarily chose to depart
-none were the subject of any kind of ethnic cleansing campaigns; no massacres, no forced eviction
AND
-none of them, except the relative few in Palestine, were in the proximity of any kind of a “war theatre” having lived in Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, Morocco etc etc

Another fundamental difference is that, as their actual actions proved,
-most Jewish departees seemed to lack any sense of attachment or loyalty to their Arab “homelands” , hence no Jewish call for a “right of return”,
and
-chose instead either to join the then ongoing colonialist campaign launched and led by their western and east European brethren that ultimately led to the establishment of the Zionist colony, Israel, in Palestine
OR
- Find another life outside of the Middle East. all together seeking it in the USA, or Europe etc
WHEREAS
-Palestinian refugees were, still are, very firmly attached to their native land, Palestine, hence their ever active and ceaseless struggle and political campaign to exercise their Right of Return to it.

Going objectively over these fundamental differences both issues are no way comparable nor analogous being the case of Palestinian refugees first FORCED out of their homeland then DENIED the right of return to it versus the case of departees who voluntarily chose to depart from what was supposed to be their “homelands” for many centuries either to partake in the Zionist colonialist project or to seek a new life outside of the region all together,
Another important difference, though little known, is that several Arab countries have invited Jewish departeees to return (some did to Morocco) Israel adamantly rejects the implemention of the Palestinians' inalienable RIGHT of RETURN to their homeland.